technology and oceanography: an assessment of federal

Chapter 3

Discussion of Technologies

Contents

PageIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Oceanographic Ships. ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Manned Submersibles and ROVs , . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Buoy, Moored, and Ocean-Floor Systems . . . . . . . 42Equipment and Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Satellites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Oceanic Data Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Current Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Age.., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Size and Length Comparison With Foreign

Oceanographic Fleets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Costs . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Present and Future Plans for Ships. . . . . . . . . . . . 53Alternative Plans for Future Ship Operations ..,. 59

Submersibles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Manned Submersibles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Comparison of Submersible Capabilities. . . . . . . . 70Remotely Operated Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Buoy, Moored, and Ocean-Floor Systems . . . . . . 75Buoys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Moored Systems. . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . ,. . . 78Ocean-Floor ystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Other Vehicles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Equipment and Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . 84Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Satellites ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● . ● ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91Operational Weather Satellites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93Recent Satellite Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...101Federal Agency Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101Aircraft v. Spacecraft. . . . . . . . . .............103Helicopters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Ocean Da ta Sys tems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105Data Archival Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Managing Technology Development . ........110

TABLES

Table No. Page7. Federal Ocean Research Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . 468. The Academic Fleet(UNOLS) . . . . . . . . . . . . 479. Ships of the NOAA Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

10. The Navy Oceanographic Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . 4811. The Federal Research Fleet–

Principal Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 50

12.

13.

14,

15.

16.

17.

18.19.20.

21.22.23.24.

25.

26.

27,

28,

Number of Ships Reaching Age 25 inNext 20 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Length and Age Characteristics ofMajor World Oceanographic ResearchFleets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Oceanographic Fleet ReplacementCost Estimates in Millions of Dollars inthe Next 20 Years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Oceanographic Fleet Operating CostComparison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Academic and NOAA FleetComparison of Daily Ship Operatingcosts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Federally Owned and Operated U.S.Submersibles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Costs for Navy Submersibles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64U.S. Private-Sector Submersibles . . . . . . . . . . 69Foreign Government-SupportedSubmersibles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70Foreign Private-Sector Submersibles. . . . . . . . 71ROV Applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73U.S. Government-Supported ROVs . . . . . . . . 73U.S. Satellites of Utility in Ocean,Coastal, and Polar Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . 91Measurement Needs forOceanographic Satellites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92Satellite Sensor Records of Interest inOcean, Coastal, and Polar Monitoring. . . . . . 93Geophysical OceanographicMeasurement Design Capabilities forSeasat-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99Aircraft and Sensors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....101

FIGURES

Figure No. Page3.

4.

5.

6.7.8.9.

10.11.

12.

Design for Two New Coastal Research. .

Ships for the Academic Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Design for New NOAA FisheriesResearch Ship, Chapman. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Schedule of NOAA Ships for FiscalYear 1981 Showing Major TimeAllocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Intermediate Mooring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Deep-Sea Surface Mooring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80Bottom Mooring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Polar-Orbiting Satellite Subsystem . . , . . . . . . 94Geostationary Satellite System . . . . . . . . . . . . 95Proposed Global GeostationarySatellite System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98The Seasat-A Spacecraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Chapter 3

Discussion of Technologies

INTRODUCTION

There is no single technology system that isbest suited for oceanographic research. A varietyof federally supported ships, satellites, buoys,submersibles, and other technologies are used foroceanographic research and collection of data atsea. These technologies, plus the equipment, in-strumentation, and other systems that are carriedaboard or are part of them, comprise the oceantechnology reviewed for this assessment. The ob-jective of this chapter is to describe the status ofthis technology; to present existing data on thecharacteristics, costs, and uses of the equipmentand systems; and to provide a brief analysis ofcapabilities. The chapter is divided into majorsections addressing:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Ships;Submersibles;Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs);Buoy, Moored, and Ocean-Floor Systems;Equipment and Instrumentation;Satellites;Aircraft; andOceanic Data Systems.

Stations and instrument systems used in oceanresearch can only be evaluated in the context ofspecific tasks to be accomplished. Since oceanresearch covers such a broad spectrum of activ-ities, it is difficult to compare the suitability orcost effectiveness of different technologies. Ex-perimentation and data collection most often re-quire a combination of systems and techniques.The following description of technologies by typeincludes both principal systems in use today aswell as those which have growing future applica-tions. It is followed by more detailed discussionsof the Federal assemblage of technologies and thefuture plans for each type.

Oceanographic Ships

Ships are used by oceanographerspersonnel and instrumentation toperiments at sea. As both transport

for carryingconduct exvehicles and

floating laboratories, they are used for takingphysical and chemical samples from the ocean,for deploying oceanographic instruments, forcollecting data over large ocean areas, and forimplanting and supporting other fixed and un-manned stations or smaller vehicles, such as sub-mersibles, data buoys, remotely operated stations(fixed or floating), and diving systems.

Federally supported oceanographic vessels in-clude 79 ships greater than 65 ft in length. TheFederal fleet is comprised of a variety of typesand is supported by six Federal agencies and pro-grams. The total annual operating cost for all ofthe fleet is $130 million in 1979 dollars. A majorproblem now facing the f leet is the rapidlyescalating operating costs caused by fuel price in-creases.

During the next 20 years, 95 percent of theFederal fleet will reach the age of 25. Economicstudies indicate that it will be cost effective torehabilitate or replace these vessels once theyreach the point of technical obsolescence — about15 to 20 years of age. Since replacement of theentire fleet of 79 vessels would cost about $1.4billion in 1979 dollars, a policy of very selectivenew construction and rehabilitation of existingvessels will be required over the next 20 years.

Most oceanographers agree that a mix of vari-ous types of ships will be needed for the foresee-able future to conduct both deep-ocean andcoastal research. As research priorities change,some newer (or less used) types will probably bedeveloped. Among these are:

● Polar research ships with ice-working capa-bilities: While much planning has been doneon polar ships, no major program has devel-oped to support the construction of such aship. The technology for working in ice fromsurface stations requires both engineeringdevelopment and transfer of technologyfrom other fields.

41

80-710 0 - 81 - 4

—

42 . Technology and Oceanography

● Adaptations of offshore oil and gas technol-ogy in industry to Federal oceanographicPrograms: The Ocean Margin Drilling Pro-gram (OMDP) is an example of plans toadapt and improve industrial technology forscience. Many other commercial systemscould be useful for Federal oceanic pro-grams, either by adapting stations them-selves or by developing cooperative projects,

● Sail Powered ships: Commercial fishermenare planning and building vessels with aux-iliary or full sailpower to reduce fuel costs.The National Research Council’s Ocean Sci-ences Board is studying sailpowered researchships.

● Tugs and barges: Towing various stations byone prime mover could be used by a numberof ocean survey and monitoring projects andmight reduce energy consumption.

Manned Submersibles and ROVs

Manned submersibles are specialized vehiclesused for some ocean research projects wheredirect human observation in the deep ocean is re-quired. At present there are only five mannedsubmersibles federally funded to do ocean re-search. Only one submersible, the Akin , i sfunded by Federal agencies for private-sector(non-Navy) research.

Although in the past decade manned submer-sibles were considered the most promising re-search tool of the future, it now appears thatmore attention will be given to remotely operatedor other unmanned vehicles and platforms formany specialized data collection and monitoringtasks.

The value of manned and unmanned (remote-ly operated) submersibles for specific researchprojects has been demonstrated, but the cost andcomplexity of operating deep-ocean submersiblesmake alternatives or improvements attractive.Some new developments which may be useful inthe future include:

● Improved systems for handling and pro-viding surface support to submersibles to ex-pand possible applications and to reduceoperational complexity.

●

●

Greater use of military systems or techniquesfor civilian research programs which couldbenefit from the substantial military capa-bilities (such as on the NR-1– Navy’s Nucle-ar Research Submersible), but not detractfrom military missions.Development of improved ROVs, possiblyadapted from recent military or industrialsystems, to improve Federal capabilities forspecific applications.

Buoy, Moored, and Ocean-FloorSystems

Buoy, moored, and ocean-floor systems are in-strumented systems for unmanned data collec-tion, particularly at and below the ocean surfaceover a long period of time. They are thus in-valuable for certain kinds of meteorologicalobservations and for oceanic measurements ofcurrents, tides, sediment transport, and seismicactivity. In some cases, these systems can besophisticated and are functional for more than ayear. In other cases, they are relatively short-livedand simple, and may even be expendable.

Communicat ion technology for buoys andother moored or free-floating systems has de-veloped to the point where these systems are be-ing more heavily utilized for routine surface andsubsurface oceanographic data collection. Satel-lite data links currently provide near real-timeaccess to moored and drifting buoys on a globalscale. As a result, buoys are used extensively inworldwide monitoring of oceanographic and me-teorological conditions. The National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) DataBuoy Office operates 19 large civilian U.S. buoysin U.S. coastal waters. Although several of thediscus-type buoys have been lost due to toppling,sinking, and other reasons, overall performanceof the large moored buoys has been steadily im-proving.

In the future, drifting buoys may be usedincreasingly for monitoring ocean surface andsubsurface conditions. They have been success-fully launched from aircraft and have providedexcellent data in experiments such as the GlobalWeather Experiment and the North Pacific Ex-periment at Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies ● 43

Equipment and Instrumentation

A variety of equipment and instrumentation iscarried on oceanographic research and surveyships.

Oceanographic instrumentation includesmany types of sensors, the selection of whichdepends on the mission. In 1974, NOAA pre-pared an inventory of the U.S. stock of sensorsand found there were about 21,000 sensor instru-ments of 34 generic types.

New oceanographic instrumentat ion tech-niques will probably be enhanced by the changestaking place in the field of electronics. Discretecomponents are being replaced by microchips.New electro-optic techniques are assisting inanalytical chemistry. Both of these are assistingin the making of smaller , more rel iable in-strumentation. Ocean instruments may be devel-oped or improved using these techniques. Ex-amples of these and other aspects of new tech-nology development for instruments are thefollowing:

● Automated data telemetry for deeply placedinstruments could improve their usefulnessand reduce ship support time. Acoustic tele-metry is used with some instruments toascertain immediately after emplacement ifthe inst rument is funct ioning properly .Some instruments enable a ship to query abottom-mounted instrument to obtain thedata that has been stored, and acoustic tele-metry is being developed to transmit thedata to a surface buoy. The retransmissionof that data to a satellite and on to a datacenter could be accomplished in the nearfuture.

● A series of techniques are being developedfor profiling the ocean, such as free-fall cur-rent profilers, other shipboard acoust icremote-sensing techniques, as well as largemoored arrays with acoustic sensors.

● Of pa r t i cu l a r interest to biological andchemical oceanographers are ways to samplewater more rapidly at depths down to 800 mby towed, underway sampling systems. Con-tinuous analytical chemical instrumentationsystems from nonoceanographic laboratoryand industrial chemical processing plants

●

●

are being adapted to onboard analysis toprovide near real-time measurements.In geological instrumentat ion, academiahas developed such tools as the hydraulicpiston corer and the very large free-fallcorer. Geological research may require ex-tensions of these as well as technology usedby industry in offshore petroleum explora-tion. Industry has developed very long, tow-ed, mult ichannel geophysical arrays ,acoustical sources, and multichannel analy-sis computers.Unders tanding the per turbat ions of theocean environment and, in turn, its effectson acoustic transmission in the ocean con-tinues to be a major effort. In the past mostof this effort was to advance undersea war-fare. Emphasis in the future is to useacoustics to measure ocean-current densityand temperature variations better and to aidin biological resource assessments. Efforts inacoustic tomography may lead to large-scalearrays useful for physical, chemical, andbiological oceanography.

Satellites

Satellites can measure ocean surfaces globally,providing data on a synoptic and timely basis.Some very large-scale ocean research projects–limited at present to sea-surface phenomena –can only be accomplished at reasonable cost bysatellite.

Meteorological and oceanographic satellitesbegan with the launch of Sputnik I by theU.S.S.R. in 1957. The first U.S. satellite series,Explorer and Vanguard, both carried meteoro-logical experiments. The National Aeronauticsand Space Administration (NASA) continued thedevelopment of operational meteorological satel-lites throughout the 1960’s with its Nimbus seriesof research spacecraft. The last of that series,Nimbus-7, is currently operating.

In 1978 a research spacecraft, Seasat-A, d e -signed for continuous monitoring of the world’soceans, was launched. The sensor systems of Sea-sat produced real- t ime data for determiningocean-surface winds, sea -surface temperatures,waveheights, ice conditions, ocean topography,

and coastal storms. Seasat-A failed prematurelyin October 1978. The next planned oceano-graphic satellite, the National OceanographicSatellite System (NOSS), is scheduled for launch-ing in 1986. Since it will not be possible to satisfyall oceanic research and operational data collec-tion needs with NOSS, it appears that the follow-ing new technologies or adaptation of technol-ogies from other fields may be beneficial in thefuture:

● Testing and development of research sat-ellites in addition to NOSS for developingqualified sensors and measurement tech-niques for operational use.

● Continual use of ocean surface and sub-surface sensors to provide satellite groundtruth to validate synoptic sea-surface datafrom satellites.

● Data-handling technology to cope with thevoluminous data flow from satellites to usernetworks.

Aircraft

Aircraft are used to a limited extent for ocean-ographic research and survey work. Like satel-lites, they permit a synoptic overview of ocean-surface conditions. Even though aircraft oper-ations are sometimes interrupted during adverseweather conditions, aircraft provide large pay-load capacity long-range, and adequate aerialcoverage. They have been used for laying air-droppable instruments (such as buoy systems andarctic ice sensors), detecting ocean pollutants,measuring gravity and magnetic fields, measur-ing sea-surface conditions with high resolution,investigating hurricanes, and conducting re-search on marine mammals. Aircraft offer cer-tain advantages in oceanic research or surveyprograms of the future.

Aircraft may become important stations forboth sensor evaluation and scientific and appliedoceanographic purposes. They may immediatelybe used for chlorophyll research as an alternativeor supplement to satellites. They could also beused to reduce ship time for such operations asimplanting buoy systems and free-fall ocean pro-filing sensors. Fixed-wing aircraft could operatein the Arctic and Antarctic where for a large part

of the year ships, except for the largest of ice-breakers, are immobilized.

Oceanic Data Systems

Many Federal agencies are involved in thecollect ion of oceanographic data . AlthoughNOAA’s Environmental Data and InformationService is the first agency specifically created tomanage oceanographic data and information foruse by Federal, State, and local agencies and thegeneral public, it is currently chartered only toarchive data from existing stations. Since there isa growing need for more current, near real-timeenvironmental data, increased data volume inthe future will require new organizations andmanagement methods for data cataloging, stor-age, archiving, and distribution.

Computers

This study has not addressed computers as aseparate category of oceanographic technology.There are indications, however, that computerswill play an increasingly important role inoceanographic research. Volumes of data fromsatellites and other ocean-monitoring systems re-quire large computational capabilities for stor-age and handling. Numerical modeling of com-plex oceanic processes–such as heat transfer be-tween the sea and the atmosphere — require thecapability of large computers. Several groups areinvestigating the need for computers, especiallyvery large capacity computers, in oceanographyand how best to meet this need.

Navigation

Satellite navigation, used by all major ocean-ographic ships, has revolutionized ship-positiondata. Continued development of oceanographicsystems will make further use of satellite naviga-tion technology.

● The new global satellite navigation system,GPS/NAVSTAR, is expected to improveoceanographic data-acquisition systems con-siderably by making position fixes availablemore frequently and by providing greateraccuracy. The system will particularly aidnavigation in the Arctic, although that was


not a prime objective of the system when it ● There may be improvements in acoust icwas planned. Early development models of navigation systems for submersibles andNAVSTAR receivers will be tested in fiscal ROVs through refinement of present systemsyear 1981. The total worldwide system is ex- to improve reliability and position accuracy.pected to be operational in 1986.

—

46 ● Technology and Oceanography

SHIPS

As of October 1980, the Federal fleet consistsof 79 oceanographic research ships operated byor under the sponsorship of six Federal agencies.In addition, two new ships are under construc-tion. One ship has just been built, and threeothers are in special status described later in thisreport.

The Federal fleet is a fleet in name only be-cause of the diversity of its management, uses,and characteristics. In evaluating and comparingship sizes within the fleet, it is important to notethat a difference in length in a ship can signifi-cantly affect its capabilities. Large ships (over200 ft) operate more safely and efficiently in thedeep ocean in bad weather and can accommo-date large scientific parties. Moreover, they areable to handle more than one type of over-the-side equipment, a necessity for interdisciplinarystudies. A disadvantage of large ships is their fuelrequirement. Smaller ships (less than 200 ft) useless fuel, but cannot cope with rough seas norhandle a variety of gear. They are, however, ef-fective for some estuarine and coastal studies.Table 7 lists the numbers and sizes of operatingresearch and survey ships over 65 ft that werefederally funded as of January 1980. Some arbi-trary exclusions were made from the list.

The Academic fleet has the greatest number ofships and is operated by universities and aca-demic institutions around the United States. It is

supported primarily by funding from the Na-tional Science Foundation (NSF) and the Officeof Naval Research (ONR) (table 8) and is en-gaged principally in basic research. Next in size isNOAA’s fleet (table 9), which is the principalFederal civilian survey and research fleet. It isoperated by NOAA’s National Ocean Survey outof east and west coast operational facilities and isdirected toward more applied research work (andsubstantial survey work) than the academic fleet.Although NOAA’s fleet is smaller in numberthan the academic fleet, it is greater in overalltonnage (thus having more large ships). TheNavy fleet has fewer ships than either of thepreceding groups, but is considerably larger intonnage because of its very large ships. Navy’sfleet is engaged in research and surveys directedtoward military missions (table 10). The CoastGuard fleet, listed next, consists mainly of ice-breakers, which only incidentally are engaged inocean research, however, these are the only U.S.ships capable of work in the polar regions whenicebreaking and navigation is required. OtherCoast Guard cutters are fitted with oceanograph-ic and meteorological instrumentation and lab-oratory space and are all used on occasion to sup-port research projects. EPA’s fleet of three smallvessels — two in the Great Lakes and one on theeast coast — is engaged primarily in ocean moni-toring. The two U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)vessels, next on the list, are operated out of the

Table 7.—Federal Ocean Research Fleet (July 1980)

Number Size range Total tonnageGroup of ships (length in feet) (displacement)

Academic fleet (UNOLS) . . . . . . . . . . . 27 65-245 23,000NOAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 90-300 32,700Navy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 210-565 87,200Coast Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 180-400 50,400EPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 124-165 1,000USGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 180-210 2,200NSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 125 600

Totals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 197,100

NOTES 1 The academic fleet IS composed of 10 NSF-built ships and 12-Navy built ships The remainder were built or con-verted by State or Insitutlons themselves. Operational funds for these ships are related to the oceanographic pro-grams using the ships and are pl!nclpally funded (In 1979) by NSF(66 percent) and the Navy (12 percent) Rehablllta-tlon of present ships, as applicable, IS under negotiation between NSF and Navy

2 Under Coast Guard, only one oceanographic cutter (Evergreen) and SIX Icebreakers are listed. In addition, all ofCoast Guard’s 40+ seagoing cutters have some oceanographic capablllty, but are not often used for this purpose.

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment


Table 8.—The Academic Fleet (UNOLS) (July 1980).————

Built/ Number ofOperator Name LOA (ft) converted scientists Owner—University of Hawaii Kana Keoki 156 1967 16 U.H.

Moana Wave 174 1973 13 Navy— ——-—.— ——University of Alaska Alpha Helix 133 1966 12 NSF——.————— ——. . — — — ———.University of Washington T. G. Thompson 209 1965 19 Navy

Hoh 65 1943/1962 6 NavyOnar 65 1954/1963 6 Navv

Oregon State University Wecoma 177 1975 16 NSF

Moss Landing Marine Laboratories Cayuse 80 1968 8 Osu

University of Southern California Velero I V 110 1948 12 Usc

University of California, San Diego Melville 245 1970 31 NavyScripps Institution of Oceanography E. B. Scripps 95 1965 8 U.c.

T. Washington 209 1965 23 NavyNew Horizon 170 1978 13 u. c.— —

University of Michigan Laurentian 80 1974 10 U.M.— — — ———Texas A&M University Gyre 174 1973 18 Navy——— ——————University of Texas Longhorn 80 1971 10 U.T.—— —— — —— —— — —University of Miami Iselin 170 1972 13 U.M.—————— ——————University of Georgia Blue Fin 72 1972/1975 8 U.G.————..—— —.. — — - —Duke University East ward 118 1964 15 D.U.

Johns Hopkins; University 1?. Warfield 106 1967 10 J.H.U.

University of Delaware Cape Hen/open 120 1975 12 U.D.

Columbia University Conrad 209 1962 18 Navy(Lamont-Doherty Geological

Observatory) Vema 197 1923/1953 14 C u .— — .

University of Rhode Island——————

Endeavor 177 1976 16 NSF

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Atlantis IIKnorrOceanus

210 1963 25 WHOI245 1969 23 Navy177 1975 12 NSF

SOURCE Unlverslty National Oceanographic Laboratory System

west coast and are engaged in geologic researchon the Outer Continental Shelf. Last, NSF has asmall wooden ship engaged in Antarctic researchduring the southern summer.

In addition, two new coastal research shipsfunded by NSF are under construction. They areto be added to the academic fleet for operationby the University of Miami and by a consortiumof Duke University (which will lay up the East-ward) and the University of North Carolina(figure 3). The contract for these two 130-ft longships was negotiated in June 1980. The Universityof Miami has retired its much larger vessel (theGillis–208 ft). Another coastal research ship ofthe same size is being planned by NSF, but be-cause of operational funding shortages NSF isplanning to reprogram fiscal year 1981 construc-tion funds to operations.

Another ship, recently built, is a 127-ft longfisheries research ship for NOAA’s Pacific fleet offisheries ships (figure 4).

The following three ships, engaged in or pro-posed for NSF programs, have special uses andare not included in the tables:

●

●

Glomar Challenger: A large, deep-oceandrilling ship, owned and operated by a pri-vate company, but under charter to NSF forthe Deep-Sea Drilling Project (DSDP).

Glomar Explorer: A ship originally built forthe Central Intelligence Agency to recover aRussian submarine now owned by Navy andrecently chartered by an industrial groupengaged in ocean-mining experiments. Thisship is proposed for the next phase of deep-ocean drilling bv NSF.


Table 9.—Ships of the NOAA Fleet (July 1980)— —

Class

IIII

IIIIIIII

IllIllIllIllIllIll

IvIvIvIvIvIv

vvv

VI

Vessel — —OceanographerDiscovererResearcherSurveyor

FairweatherRainierMt. MitchellMiller Freeman

PeirceWhitingMcArthurDavidsonOregon IIAlbatross IV

George B. KelezTownsend CromwellDavid Starr JordanDelaware //FerrelChapman

RudeHeckJohn N. Cobb

Murre II

BaseLength (ft) Iocation a

303 PMC303 PMC278 AMC292 PMC

231 PMC231 PMC231 AMC215 PMC

163 AMC163 AMC175 PMC175 PMC170 AMC187 AMC

177 AMC164 PMC171 PMC156 AMC133 AMC127 PMC

90 AMC90 AMC94 PMC

86 PMC

Primary mission

OceanographyOceanographyOceanographyOceanography

Nautical chartingNautical chartingNautical chartingFisheries research

Nautical chartingNautical chartingNautical charting/currentsNautical chartingFisheries researchFisheries research

OceanographyFisheries researchFisheries researchFisheries ResearchCurrentsFisheries research

Nautical chartingNautical chartingFisheries research

Fisheries research

aAMC—Atlantic Marine Center, Norfolk, Va , PMC—Pacific Marine Center, Seattie. Wash

Year builtNumber ofscientists

1966196619701960

1968196819671967

196319631966196719671962

194419631965196819681980

196619661950

1943

30241416

444

11

2222

1515

59

13906

004

5

SOURCE’ National Oceanic and AtmosDherlc Admtnlstration

Table 10.—The Navy Oceanographic Fleet (July 1980)—

Approximateoperating Year built Number of

Class Vessel name Length (ft) region Primary mission or converted scientists

AGOR Lynch 209 Atlantic Research 1964 15AGOR De Steiguer 209 Pacific Research 1969 15AGOR Bartlett 209 Atlantic Research 1969 15AGS Silas Bent 285 Pacific General oceanography 1965 30AGS Kane 285 Atlantic General oceanography 1967 30AGS Wilkes 285 Indian General oceanography 1971 30AGS Wyman 285 Atlantic Ocean survey 1971 30AGS Chauvenet 393 Indian Coastal survey 1970 12AGS Harkness 393 Carribean Coastal survey 1971 12AGS Bowdich 455 Atlantic Ocean survey 1958 40AGS Dutton 455 Pacific Ocean survey 1958 40AGS Hess 564 Pacific Ocean survey 1977(C)AGOR Hayes ●

—246 Atlantic & Oceanographic research 1971 30

PacificAGOR Mizar•• 262 Classified Classified 1965(c) 15AG Kingsport•• 455 Classified Classified 1950 15

NOTE The above excludes those Navy-owned ships whtch are part of the Academic fleet“The Hayes IS operated In support of the Naval Research Laboratory.““&f/zar and Kfngsport are assigned to programs of the Naval Electronics Systems Command

SOURCE U S Navy

Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies ● 4 9

Figure

Main engines (2) caterpillar D-379 la, 540 hp ea.L O A .131 ft L B P..124 ft.

Accommodations

SOURCE National Science Foundation

Figure 4.— Design for New NOAA Fisheries Research Ship, Chapman

Designer & builder— Bender Welding & Machine Co.Hull—welded steel, displacement—520 tonsLength— 127 ft, beam—30 ft, draft— 14 ftCruising speed— 11 knots, range—6,000 miles, power—1 ,250 shpComplement—4 officers, 7 crew, 6 scientists

SOURCE Nattonal Oceanic and Atmospheric Admfnlstratlon


● Eltanin: An Antarctic research ship whichhas recently been returned from loan to theGovernment of Argentina. NSF is consider-ing its future use.

Current Uses

The 79 ships in the Federal fleet are used for avariety of research and data-collection tasks.Large ships can conduct diverse research projectson a single cruise or on a series of successivecruises, Some ships combine research with opera-tional duties; e.g., Coast Guard icebreakers areused where operational icebreaking is the pri-mary mission and research is an important butsecondary mission. Other ships, like Navy’s sur-vey vessels, collect both classified and unclassifieddata during their at-sea research operations.

The general uses (simplified for this report) ofships in the Federal fleet are shown in table 11.An example of the variety of uses of NOAA’s fleetis given in figure 5, which displays the proposedfiscal year 1981 ship allocation plan.

Age

The condition of ships in the Federal fleet andtheir potential replacement is a major concernbecause of the substantial capital costs involved.If a 25-year life is assumed for most of the re-

Table 11 .—The Federal Research Fleet—Principal Uses

Numbers in useFleet group Uses categories

Academic. .NOAA . . . . .

Navy . . . . . .

Coast Guard

EPA. . . . . . .USGS . . . . .NSF . . . . . .

Total. . . .

Basic oceanographic research 27Surveys, charting 10Fisheries research 9General oceanographic

research 5Surveys, charting 9General oceanography

operations 6Ice operations 6Data buoy servicingPatrol and oceanography (a;Pollution monitoring 3Marine geology 2Antarctic research 1

79

search ships in this fleet, many current shipswould need replacement within the next 20 years.Table 12 indicates when replacements would bebuilt if each ship were retired after 25 years serv-ice. Since aging characteristics are not uniform,the table does not indicate a need for ship re-placement nor the most effective plan for re-placement if that need exists. Of note is the factthat the academic fleet has ships that are newerthan those of the rest of the fleets.

Economic studies by NOAA indicate that eventhough refurbishing and upgrading of key equip-ment is costly, it is an overall saving compared toreplacing the ships at age 25. This approach ap-pears to have been adopted as cost-effective byNavy with classes of warships. Furthermore,NOAA’s analysis points out that there are no ex-act criteria for when to replace or to upgradeships. Navy’s experience with its Fleet Rehabilita-tion and Modernization Program indicates tech-nical obsolescence occurs at a ship age of about15 years. NOAA estimates its oceanographicships might have a life of 25 years if no rehabili-tation is made. At present, NOAA is consideringa rehabilitation plan for ships in its fleet whichare about 20 years old. This rehabilitation ap-proach would shift the numbers in table 5 to lateryears.

Size and Length Comparison WithForeign Oceanographic Fleets

The oceanographic research ships of the worldover 100 ft in length are concentrated amongeight countries. The United States and the SovietUnion, each with 34 research ships over 100 ft inlength, have the largest fleets. The other sixcountries, Canada, France, the Federal Republicof Germany, Great Britain, Japan, and Norway,each have between 7 and 14 such research ships.Some fleets, like that of Canada, are heavilyfishery-research oriented, Size and age charac-teristics of the large ships for these eight countriesare given in table 13. Data for this table was

] U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmos-pheric Administration, FY 1980 Issue Paper Mzdltje Rehabilitationand UPgrad(~ of NOAA Ships, prepared for Director, NationalOcean Survey, April 1978.

asome mlnlmal capability on all CutlerS.


Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies 51

Figure 5.—Schedule of NOAA Ships for Fiscal Year 1981 Showing Major Time Allocations

Ship I Oct Nov I Dec I Jan Feb Mar Apr I May June July Aug I Sept4

L e g e n d : p o r t t i m e & r e p a i r s

F i s h e r i e s s u r v e y s

_ R e s e a r c h p r o g r a m s

_ C h a r t i n g

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admlnlstratlon

Table 12.—Number of Ships Reaching Age 25 in Next 20 Years

Fleet group 1980-85 1985-90 1990-95 1995-2000 Beyond 2000

Academic . . . . 3 (10°/0) 9 (31%) 5 (l%) 10 (34%) 2 (8°/0)NOAA. . . . . . . . 6 (25% 12 (50%) 6 (25%) — —Navy. . . . . . . . . 4 (27%) 3 (2°/0) 4 (27%) 4 (27%) —Coast Guard . . 5 (71 0/0) — — — 2 (29%)EPA . . . . . . . . . 1 (33%) — 2 (67%) — —USGS . . . . . . . . 1 (50%) — 1 (50% — —NSF . . . . . . . . . — — 1 (10070) — —

Total. . . . . . . 20 (25%) 24 (30%) 19 (23%) 14(1 7°/0) 4 (5°/0)SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

taken from Janes Ocean Technology 19792 andincludes only research ships. Survey ships, whichvary widely from country to country in both sizeand purpose and are sometimes pressed into re-search use, were not included.

There are about 17 other countries adjacent tothe sea that have between one and four oceano-

‘Robert L. ‘1’rillo (cd. ), Jane’ i Ocean Technology})” 1979-1980, 4thcd, ( New l’ork: Franklin Watts, Inc. , 1979).

graphic research vessels each. Many of these havebeen particularly important for both regionalstudies and for international programs such asthe International Geophysical Year. These vesselswill become increasingly important for global-type studies such as the World Climate Program.

Availability of charter ships is important inconsidering ship supply. Industries in Great Bri-tain, Norway, the Federal Republic of Germany,


Table 13.—Length and Age Characteristics of Major World Oceanographic Research Fleets

Ship-length distribution 1 Ship-age distribution

Over I Over 30100-199 ft 200-299 ft 300-399 ft 400 ft 0-10 years 11-20 years 21-30 years years Total

Canada. . . . . . . .Federal Republic

of Germany . .France . . . . . . . .Great Britain . . .Japan . . . . . . . . .Norway. . . . . . . .United States. . .U.S.S.R. . . . . . . .

8

39646

227

3

43651

1016

.

12—

24

2

——————7

1

37544

1011

10

:741

198

2

212

6

—

—————

5

13

7131497

3434

NOTE. The U.S research ships in this table Include 20 from the academic fleet, 12 from the NOAA fleet, one NSF ship, and one Coast Guard shipaLaunch dates were not available for many of the Russian ships

SOURCE. Off Ice of Technology Assessment.

France, and the United States offer charter shipsthat are research-equipped. Generally, these aresmaller and more specialized ships such as seismicsurvey ships. Sometimes they are former govern-ment research ships.

Important features of table 13 include:

● The U.S.S.R. fleet includes more ships over300 ft in length (very large by U.S. stand-ards) than do the fleets of all free worldcountries combined.

● The f leets of the United States and theU.S.S.R. have similar numbers at very new(less than 10 years of age) and very old (over30 years of age) ships.

costs

To evaluate the dollar value of the ships in theFederal fleet, the present replacement costs foreach ship were estimated, and then the estimatesfor the entire Federal fleet were tallied. Theseestimates were based on original constructioncosts (which were obtained from the agencies)plus an inflation factor. This system was used byNOAA in its recent report covering the ship reha-bilitation plans, and the resulting costs are com-parable to NSF’s University National Oceano-graphic Laboratory System (UNOLS) estimatescontained in a report on replacement of thefleet. 3

— — ——.———3Un iversity - Nat ional Oceanographic Laboratory System, On the

Orderly Replacement ()/’the Academtc Fleet, July 1978.

Table 14 illustrates the data on replacementcosts estimated as described. The costs shown donot represent needs or plans, but do illustraterelative replacement costs of the fleets in thefuture if the present use continues without majorchanges.

The total replacement cost of the entire 79-ship fleet is $1.4 billion in 1979 dollars. Ifreplacement is spread over the next 20 years asshown, it will present a sizable funding problem.An important consideration is how to maintainneeded capabilities in this fleet at a lower cost.

To estimate operating costs for the Federalfleet, the yearly fleet operating costs of the firstfour largest fleet groups (for 1979) was estimatedusing data supplied from the agencies (table 15).The total annual operating costs of the entireFederal fleet totaled about $130 million, which,if no changes are made in the future, could rep-resent funding of $3.6 billion in current dollarsover the next 20 years. Here again, Federal fund-ing will undoubtedly limit this, and more cost-effective future planning may be required. Table16 presents comparative estimates of the dailyoperating cost of the academic fleet and theNOAA fleet for 1979.4

—4Nat ional Science Foundation, LriIVO1..S Funding 1%)/tie, 1973 to

1%-olp(tt>d 1 !%1, tMay ~ 979.


Table 14.—Oceanographic Fleet Replacement Cost Estimates in Million of Dollarsin the Next 20 Years (based on 1979 dollars)

Replacement year category——————————— ---

Fleet group -- 1980-85 1985-90 1990-2000 Beyond 2000 Total. - ---

A c a d e m i cN O A A .Navy. . . . . . . .Coast Guard .E P AUSGS . . . . . . . .NSF . . . . . . . . .

Totals. . . . . .

$ 1060

160230

55

—$470 .

$ 7517065

———

$310


Table 15.—Oceanographic Fleet OperatingCost Comparison

Annual operating cost

Fleet group Millions of 1979 dollars

Navy . . . . . . . . 50NOAA . . . . . . . . . . . . 36A c a d e m i c F l e e t 25C o a s t G u a r d . 20

Total . 130

Numberof ships

152427

7

73

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

Table 16.—Academic and NOAA Fleet Comparisonof Daily Ship Operating Costs (size in length in

feet–costs in $1,000 per day for 1979)

Academic fleet NOAA fleeta

Size range Costs (average) Size range Costs (average)

60-99 . . . . . . . . . 1.3 86 . . . . . . . . . . . 1.790-100 . . . . . . . . 2.3

100-149 . . . . . . . 3.2 133-170 . . . . . . . 4.1150-200 . . . . . . . 4.7 163-187 . . . . . . . 6.2

215-231 . . . . . . . 10.3Over 200. . . . . . 6.9 278-303 . . . . . . . 13.5

aNOAA ships are generally staffed with a~ermaneot CWW of Governmentemployees, Includlng technicians trained to meet ongoing NOAA mlsslons,whereas, the academic fleet uses students as research asswtants at sea

SOURCES General Offshore Corp NOAA F/ee( MIX Study. FY 87. FY 84, FY 88.prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admlnlstratlon,Off Ice of Fleet Operations, contract No NA79SAC 00632, Aug 23.1979, National Science Foundaf(on, UNOLS Fund/ng Prof//e, 7973 toProjected 1981 May 1979

Present and Future Plans for Ships

Much of the Federal technology now in use bythe ocean community has been in place for manyyears but has not had recent careful evaluation.Although the need for seagoing vessels remainsand is somewhat expanded by the addition of new

$ 75 $ 170120 — 350175 — 400— 220 45030 — 3510 — 15

5 — 5

$415 $230 $1,425

ways to examine the ocean, there exists a generalerosion of certain ship platform and researchcapabilities that will worsen in the future if thepresent trend continues. Most apparent in, butnot exclusively in, the deep-water academic fleet,this erosion affects the ships themselves, the in-strumentation and equipment aboard them, andtheir general condition of repair. The Federalagencies that have traditionally funded and sup-ported oceanographic research and survey shipshave not developed comprehensive plans for thefleets of the future; although planning is under-way within the individual agencies and throughthe new Federal Oceanographic Fleet Coordinat-ing Council.

The Academic Fleet

NSF and ONR of the Navy are the principalagencies that fund the academic fleet.

Three divisions within NSF support construc-tion and operation of academic research ships.The Division of Ocean Sciences funds the aca-demic fleet, the Division of Earth Sciences fundsthe Glomar Challenger, which is used for DSDP;and the Division of Polar Programs funds Ant-arctic research ships (one small ship at present).Each of these divisions uses a different manage-ment approach. More than two-thirds of the costof operating the academic fleet is funded by NSFgrants to the operating institutions on an annualbasis. Ship-time funding is determined by thelevel of NSF-funded science projects requiringship time. Navy owns nine of the ships in the aca-demic fleet, including all but one of the largestclass of ships and all but two of the next largestclass; and supports 10 to 15 percent of the oper-


Photo credit Scripps /nst/tut/on o/ Oceanography

D/V Glomar Challenger, under contract to NSF, is utilizedin the Deep Sea Drilling Project and managed by

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

ating costs of the academic fleet through researchproject funding.

Additional funds for the academic fleet areprovided by other Federal agencies (10 to 15 per-cent) and from States and private groups. Someships are federally owned and some are not, butall are operated by individual institutions withtheir own personnel and management.

In July 1978, UNOLS made some recommen-dations on the size and composition of the aca-demic fleet. The projections suggested that thebasic size of the fleet required little change in theshort run because the research budget was verystable, Since emphasis would be placed on re-search in coastal and continental margin waters,more and better equipped coastal vessels wouldbe required. Larger ships would be needed forcoastal work in the winter, for multidisciplinarystudies in all areas, and for distant water andopen-ocean operations.

UNOLS also proposed a program of orderlyrenovation and modification of vessels to main-tain the fleet. It suggested that an annual ex-penditure of $3 million over the next 15 yearswould be adequate to replace intermediate andsmaller vessels and that additional funding ofabout $48 million would be required for replac-

ing four major vessels which should be retired be-tween 1982 and 1993.

NSF’s Division of Ocean Sciences Ship Plans.– With advice from academic institutions, par-ticularly through UNOLS, NSF’s Division ofOcean Sciences periodically reviews the currentand future uses and needs of the academic fleet inorder to effect changes in the fleet, including theconstruction of new ships and the retirement ofold ones. In 1979 the Division of Ocean Sciencesmade several analyses of trends and of the near-term future of the academic fleet. The analysesnoted that the downward trend in ship use forscientific funding support could only be changedby a massive increase in field research support.5

This conclusion led to the decision to supportconstruction of new coastal ships (135-ft sizerange) and encouraged the retirement of at leastone large ship (AGOR class, 208 ft). Two coastalvessels are now under construction. G The first willbe operated by the University of Miami; the sec-ond will be operated by a Duke University andUniversity of North Carolina consortium.

At present, the Division of Ocean Sciences con-cludes:

1.

2.

3.

There are no major new demands for shiptime over the next 5 years, mainly becausefuture funding of ocean sciences is ex-pected to remain level;The re i s more po t en t i a l demand fo rsmaller ships than for larger ships becauseof a reduction of major field projects ingeology, chemistry, and physical ocean-ography; andThere are more possibilities of projects inthe fields of coastal biology and pollution.

It should be noted that the first conclusion is incontrast to those of the Division of the EarthSciences and the Division of Polar Programs,both of which anticipate major new projects re-quiring new large ships.

Over the next 5 years, NSF has projected $4million to $5 million per year for capital addi-

—.‘Nat ional Science Founda[ ion, Division of Ocean Sciences ‘< Re -

port on Oceanic Research Facili[im, ” draft paper, June 1979,bN’atiOnal Science Fou ndat ion, Project Solicitation, “Construct ion

and Opcv at ion of a Coastal Research Ship, ” k-ebruarv ] 979,


Photo credit .Skwpps Institution of Oceanography

Two of the larger, deep-ocean ships of the Academic Fleetare the At/antis // (top) from Woods Hole Oceanographic

Institution and the Me/vi//e from Scripps Institutionof Oceanography

tions to the academic fleet. About $1 million to$1.5 million of this is planned for ship equip-ment , such as winches, wire, and navigationequipment. This leaves about $3 million plus peryear, or about the cost of one coastal ship peryear. In the near term, however, a shortage ofship operating funds and an increase in fuelcosts, not evident when UNOLS projections weremade, may require NSF to reprogram capitalfunds to the operating accounts. Moreover, thereis serious concern among the oceanographic re-search institutions that funding for current shipoperations is so limited that more major ships

with valuable and unique capabilities will beretired. There is particular concern that an ade-quate large ship capability in the academic fleetbe maintained. Much of the research completedin the International Decade of Ocean Explora-tion in the 1970’s was performed on large shipsbecause many of the field projects were interdis-ciplinary, long-term, and long-range in natureand required a large crew of scientists and tech-nicians. It is believed that to accomplish much ofthe future research work in fisheries, climate,pollution, geology, and basic research programs,large (seagoing) ships must be available.

N S F ’ s D i v i s i o n o f P o l a r P r o g r a m s S h i pP l a n s . – T h i s p r o g r a m p r i n c i p a l l y s u p p o r t soceanographic and geologic projects in the Ant-arctic region and currently operates one smallship, the Hero, which has limited capabilities formajor research work or for ice operations. NSF’sDivision of Ocean Sciences also supports cruisesby some of the academic fleet for Antarctic workwith funds from the Division of Polar Programs.Most of the academic ships and NOAA ships thatnow work in the high latitudes are not designedfor even cold water operations. Much effort hasbeen invested over the past several years to devel-op a suitable polar research ship (or ships) as apossible addit ion to the academic f leet .7 I n -creased attention to the Arctic was the prime

~ R. F,lsner, Polo r R (’search Vessel, A Corlc(~pt ua[ I)C Wgn, Lln iver

sity of Alaska, May 1977.

Photo credit Wm R Curtsinger

NSF’s R/V Hero, a small wooden ship with limitedcapabilities, faces major tasks in the frozen

Antarctic waters


motivation for the effort; however, the Divisionof Polar Programs is now principally focused inthe Antarctic where there is a growing interest inAntarctic living resources, especially krill.

The iceworking capabilities of any polar shipare usually limited. None of NSF’s designs for apolar research ship would be as capable in heavyice as are existing Coast Guard icebreakers;although the new ship design could operate inmoderate ice of 1.5-ft thickness, could do someicebreaking, and would also have capabilities inrough, open-ocean waters.

Instead of constructing a new polar researchship, the Division of Polar Programs may refur-bish the Eltanin, an ice-strengthened ship. WhenNSF compared the cost and resulting capabilitiesbetween constructing a new ship or refurbishingand upgrading the Eltanin, it concluded that theEltanin could be refurbished and upgraded forapproximately one-third of the cost of the newship. Refurbishment , operat ion, and mainte-nance costs of the Eltanin will begin to exceedthose of a new ship by 1990.8 In mid-1980, fund-ing for the conversion of the Eltanin was favored,but no final decision has yet been announced.

NSF’s D iv i s i on o f Ea r th Sc i ences Sh ipPlans. – In this division, DSDP utilizing theGlomar Challenger is scheduled to be phased out

‘Ha rbrid~e }{0u5e, Inc. , “F.ltanin Cost Analysis, ” prepared forNational Science Foundation. November 1979.

Phofo credft National Sc/ence Foundation

R/V Eltanin, now inactive, was constructed in 1957 as anice-strengthened cargo ship and converted in 1961

to a research ship for the Antarctic

in fiscal year 1982, and OMDP is scheduled totake over where the Challenger left off. SinceOMDP is a major new initiative in technology de-velopment and ocean science, OTA has pre-sented an evaluation of it in a later section of thisreport. The plans include the conversion of a ship(Glomar Explorer) for deep-sea drilling. Thisprogram overshadows most of the other plans foroceanographic ships in NSF and could affectfunds available for other ocean science programsand facilities.

Navy Academic Ship Plans. –The Navy isnow examining its future role in support ofoceanographic ships. I t cont inues to have astrong interest in basic military oceanographicresearch, which has traditionally been accom-plished by several oceanographic institutions.Funding of this research, however, has not keptpace with inflation over the last decade and isnow projected to continue into the 1980’s atabout the present level. Future Navy funding ofnew ship construction for research institution useis not in the present plans. It is hoped, in cooper-ation with NSF, to fund the upgrading and newequipment needs for Navy-owned, academicallyoperated ships. Navy will also consider on a case-by-case basis sharing the upgrading costs forthose ships owned by NSF or by the institutionsthemselves. Navy cites two factors as justificationfor this support: 1) there is a need to maintaincapabilities in locations important to Navy; and2) other programs may not cover high latitudeareas and open oceans far from U.S. shores.These basic research needs also support a needfor the larger oceanographic ships.

In 1980, Navy proposed $2.3 million in its fis-cal year 1981 budget for upgrading the scientificsuite and major midlife overhaul for Navy-ownedacademic research ships. This will be a plannedbudget item for the next 4 to 5 years.

NOAA and Other Agency Fleet Plans

NOAA’s operational ships have been studiedand reviewed several times recently. In August1979 a fleet-mix study prepared by an outsidecontractor, but not released by NOAA, projectedneeds and costs through fiscal year 1980 foroceanographic ships. It found that NOAA’s fleetwas reasonably appropriate for the exist ing


NOAA program needs; and only a shift to small-er sizes, the addition of a few ships, and some ef-forts to modernize were needed to satisfy futureresearch and data-collection needs. The studyrecommended a variety of approaches for up-grading the fleet, including some rehabilitation,some construction of smaller ships to replacelarger ones, and more long-term chartering to fillthe gaps. g NOAA is now studying three aspects ofthat study to define more accurately its needs, in-cluding:

1. whether to charge specific programs forship costs rather than to fund all the shipsfrom one large account;

2. the possibilities of long-term charters orother chartering changes; and

3. new program requirements (for fisheries,pollution, climate) for future ships andother technology.

— — . . —‘(;cneral Offshore Corp., !%’(),4<1 Fl(’(’t .Vfl.r .%111 (1)’, F’}’ 81, 1;}’ 8’/,

F }’ //#, prepar(d for NOAA, Office of Fleet Operat ions , contra(-tN(). N)4-79-SAC6MM32> Au~, !23, 1979.

Photo credits Naf/orra/ Ocean/c arrd Atrnospher/c Adrnlrr/sfrat/on

NOAA’s survey ships: (top) McArthur, 175-ft long andthe 303-ft long Oceanographer

NOAA projects fleet operations expendituresto continue at about the same level into the nearfuture, with ship operating costs equally dividedbetween east and west coast bases (Norfolk andS e a t t l e ) .10 In the fiscal year 1981 budget, itallocated $3.5 million for upgrading and reha-bilitation of some ships as part of its plan toupgrade 15 ships, including 3 of its 4 large ones,during the 1980’s.

The missing aspects of all of the recent studiesby NOAA are considerations of major new re-search problems, of coordination with academia,and of consolidation of NOAA ship needs withthose of other agencies. NOAA has establishedan internal working group to examine theseissues. In a letter to OTA, NOAA claimed thatits present study proposes a set of decisions basedon NOAA’s best projection of future require-ments of the fleet over the next decade. Some ofthese future NOAA research needs can be foundin its fisheries program, development of plans forpollution monitoring, and the emergence of aneed for informat ion concerning the globalocean’s physical structure and circulation in connection with the climate program. NOAA wilalso examine relevant marine programs to determine possible changes in ship requirements ancwill offer a reasonable set of options for projec-ting demands. It will also consider the effect ofchanges in technology and of the use of other sta-tions, such as buoys or satellites, on ship re-quirements.

The Navy Oceanographic Fleet

There is a continuing need for Navy to conductsurveys and to collect oceanographic data to sup-port fleet operations. This is separate from Navyresearch sponsored in the academic fleet in whichmost of Navy’s oceanographic fleet (9 out of 15ships) are engaged.

Four ships conduct research work at Navy lab-oratories, the Lynch, De Steiguer, Bartlett, andHayes, and two ships are used in the Naval Elec-t r o n i c S y s t e m p r o g r a m s , t h e M i z a r a n dKingsport. Much of this work is classified, and

80-710 0 - El - 5

—


Photo credits. US, Navy

Two of Navy’s research ships De Steiguer (top) and Hayes

future ship needs will be determined by the pro-grams they support. Currently some Navy labsuse academic or other vessels. One future changeis that the Naval Oceanographic Research andDevelopment Administration (NORDA) may beassigned the major oceanographic research shipsin Navy’s fleet and thus have operational respon-sibility for them.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Fleet

EPA owns and operates three ships engaged inapplied research work — two in the Great Lakesand one on the east coast — and has investedabout $300,000 each to convert them for its use.

The Great Lakes ships are used principally forwater quality studies. Presently, only one of themis in service. They are each operated by a privatecompany under a 3-year contract.

The east coast vessel, the Antelope, is engagedin surveys of dump sites for EPA’s ocean-dump-ing permit program. EPA claims that its dumpsite survey ship is more cost effective than otheralternatives, such as ship time from other agen-cies. It may be that agencies with specific re-search programs, such as EPA, can more effi-ciently provide their own ships for their purposes,but there is no available evaluation of the costeffectiveness of this approach versus that of usingthe Federal Government’s established researchfleet operators.

Future plans for EPA ships are not certain.There appears to be a long-term need for theservices of at least one vessel on the Great Lakesfor EPA’s water quality program, one ship on theeast and gulf coasts for the ocean-dumping per-mit program, and one ship (possibly chartered)on the west coast. At present EPA has no specificplans for the long-term future operation or ex-pansion of its fleet. When the 3-year contracts forthe existing ships expire, EPA will decide on anext step.

7

Photo credit. Env/ronmental Protect/on Agency

Environmental Protection Agency’s Antelope

Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies . 59

Coast Guard Fleet

Coast Guard’s icebreakers can support re-search operations and are used for this purposeby several other agencies, including Navy, NSF,and NOAA. Coast Guard also operates one re-search ship used principally for its own missions.

Future plans for the Coast Guard fleet includemaintaining the capability for its mission ofbreaking ice for defense and civilian missions andsurveying and tracking ice that may be hazardousto navigation. Oceanographic research, however,does not appear to play an important role inplans for future ships, partly because many scien-tists feel that icebreakers are not suitable forresearch and that their operational managementis incompatible with research missions.

New icebreakers to replace the Wind class inthe mid-1 980’s are now being designed. It may bedesirable to coordinate the design work with thedesign of polar research ships by NSF. Anotherconsideration is whether Coast Guard’s polarfleet could be better configured for a variety ofocean-science tasks in the Arctic and Antarctic,either in lieu of or in support of other aforemen-tioned polar research ship developments.

Photo credit U S Coast Guard

U.S. Coast Guard’s Polar Star can break ice 6-ft thickwhile maintaining a 3-knot speed

USGS Fleet

The ships supported by USGS represent a smallportion of the entire Federal fleet, but do supportimportant marine resource survey work of thisagency in the Pacific and Alaskan areas. USGSrelies on other agencies, such as NOAA, and aca-demic institutions to provide ship support whenneeded.

In the Pacific and Alaskan OCS areas (untilfiscal year 1980), USGS operated two ships–onefor regional resource assessment, the other for en-vironmental surveys. Because of fiscal constraintsin fiscal year 1980, USGS now operates only oneship in these areas. USGS is presently evaluatingthe cost effectiveness of either a dual-operationalrole for the one ship, or the partial use of NOAA,university, and charter vessels to meet mission re-quirements.

Alaska presents unique problems for USGSwork because its very large continental shelf andcomplex environmental problems are coupledwith a short field season. At present, NOAA pro-vides ship support to USGS in Alaska. In a recentletter to OTA, USGS stated that in the long term,an ice-strengthened vessel, fully committed toUSGS marine environmental surveys, should beconstructed. This commitment would requiremultiyear funding for construction, operation,and maintenance.

In the Atlantic OCS and the Gulf of Mexico,USGS does not own or operate oceanographicresearch vessels. Instead, through cooperationwith UNOLS, it uses university ships during therelatively long field season.

Alternative Plans for FutureShip Operations

The future structure, size, capabili ty, andresearch technology of the oceanographic fleet,will be determined by the aforementioned plansand by the research to be done. There are somealternatives to present plans that are now understudy that may improve capabilities or reducecosts.


Alternative Management Systems forthe Academic Fleet

Consistent, long-term planning and fundingby all principal agencies that use the academicfleet may increase the operating efficiencies ofthe fleet. Part of such a system of future fleet sup-port is now in place in NSF and UNOLS. How-ever, other agencies, principally Navy and per-haps NOAA, the Department of Energy (DOE),and USGS, could be more involved in fleet plan-ning than they are at present. Planning to thisend has begun through the Federal Ocean-ographic Fleet Coordinating Council.

NSF Management Practices. – NSF’s presentmanagement system is designed to reviewoperation proposals each year (July throughNovember for the following year) after majordecisions are made on research projects requiringship time. Grants are then usually made to thoseinstitutions operating ships for the total time thatthe ships are to be used on NSF projects and arebased on the cost proposals submitted for theships. Navy (ONR) funds project time and shiptime together, but it makes decisions much laterin the planning cycle than NSF does. NSF andNavy coordinate their processes informally. Someagencies, such as USGS, regularly contract foracademic ship time by passing funds throughNSF. Other agencies, such as NOAA and DOE,contract for academic ship time separately, withlittle or no long-range coordination with NSF,

While this system seems to offer needed flex-ibility, some problems exist. ONR and NSF arenow working together to improve the coordina-tion of ship funding and management practices.If other agencies such as NOAA or DOE becomesubstantial users of academic ships in the future,more coordination may be necessary.

NSF has gradually assumed the major Federalresponsibility for funding academic ships. Fur-ther efforts by NSF to coordinate other agencyuse or to consolidate management and fundingprocedures may result in increased use of aca-demic ship at costs that are usually very com-petitive.

Future Academic Fleet Replacements. – Thebulk of the academic fleet is new enough not torequire replacement in the near term (less than 5

years). The present commitment to build twocoastal ships by NSF is of concern because it is atthe expense of the operation of other major shipsin the fleet. The major immediate concern aboutthis fleet is not for building new ships, but forproviding adequate funds to operate and main-tain the present fleet..

NSF and ONR have jointly sponsored a studyby the Ocean Sciences Board of the NationalAcademy of Sciences to examine the future of theacademic research fleet. Several areas of fleetmanagement, composition, and operation will beevaluated for both the short term and the longterm. Specifically, the study will address thefollowing issues: the long-term fleet size and mix,namely, the number and size of general-purposevessels and special-purpose-vessel needs such asdedicated geology and geophysical vessels andhigh-latitude ships; an examination of the dif-ferent approaches to fluctuations in fleet usage,such as layups, leasing, buying of excess Federalagency fleet time, and other options; a descrip-tion of the different modes of fleet operation ac-cording to local, regional, and Federal agencypractices; the acquisition of new vessels by newconstruction, a refit of federally owned vessels, orleasing; an examination of vessel maintenance,refitting, and upgrading; and the different ap-proaches to the review and funding of ship needs.

Regional Operating Centers for the Academ-ic Fleet. -– The major oceanographic institutions,UNOLS, and some of the Federal agencies havebeen discussing the feasibility of establishingsome form of a regional operating system for theacademic fleet. 11 Some groups claim that futuretight budgets will force closer cooperative oper-ating arrangements, at least for the larger, moreexpensive ships, and that a well-planned systemcould offer benefits for both the researcher andthe Government. There is much controversy overthis subject, and no consensus has been reached.

The present practice of assigning oceano-graphic ship operating responsibilities to institu-tions, based on the merits of their scientific pro-grams and their operating or management capa-bilities merits a review in light of several changes

11 u~iv~~~it ~. Nat iOnal oceanographic Laboratory System. “ Re-port of the Working Group on Joint Ship Scheduling, ” May 1980.


in the nature of oceanographic cruises. For one, asignificant amount of oceanographic ship time isspent on multi-institutional projects that areplanned jointly by many participating scientistsand are often integrated into international pro-grams of long duration and large scope. Becauseresearch often takes the form of large-scale,planned data-collection efforts, scientific pro-ductivity and skills at ship management do notnecessarily go together. The scientists from aninstitution and its ships and crews do not nowform as close and as isolated a group as in thepast.

Some groups have proposed operation of re-gional coastal oceanographic ships to serve manyusers on many short cruises in coastal research.For at least one of the possible future coastalships, regional operation was proposed so thatthe ship could be operated by an institutionwhich also operated several other major ships. Itwas also planned to have alternate ports for theship so that the ship could be operated by theoperator institution, yet could return to port easi-ly for minor overhaul. Thus, it would be man-aged from, but would not necessarily operatefrom, the dock of the operator institution. In thisway both flexibility and cost effectiveness couldbe attained by standardizing maintenance, spareparts, and some equipment.

It is clear that there can be different kinds ofregional operations. One kind may be simply ahome base for a number of ship faci l i t ies .Another kind may be a geographic operationsarea with one or more bases for ship facilities.Finally, regional operators may be a group ofusers whose laboratories have geographic prox-imity, but whose research interests are morecosmopolitan.

Alternative Management Systems forthe Agency Fleets

Navy and NOAA have major survey fleets thatrespond to a continuing long-term need forroutine data collection. In fact, several majormultipurpose oceanographic ships are in bothNavy and NOAA fleets. Other agencies seem tohave an uncertain commitment to future re-search and survey fleets.

Consolidating some Federal agency fleets thatappear to have almost identical capabilities anduses and coordinating with different fleets thatcan from time to time efficient y match ca-pabilities and needs may be cost-effective. Someconsolidation has been suggested among NOAA,USGS, and EPA. Both USGS and EPA have asmall number of ships with uses very similar topart of the NOAA fleet. In practice, however, itis quite difficult to maintain research programquality and flexibility in one agency when controlof principal technology, such as ships, is inanother agency. Most agencies with ships claimthat their needs are sufficiently unique to requirethat their ships be under their own agency or pro-gram control.

Coordination among all agencies that operateoceanographic ships is taking place in the FederalOceanographic Fleet Coordinating Council. Fu-ture trends in coordination may include planningfor oceanographic capabilities for new vessels andconsidering whether these vessels can meet theprogram needs of other agencies prior to build-ing. Also, there is a need to coordinate continual-ly the requirements and capabilities of the aca-demic fleet with those of the operating agencies,some of which is already being done. The possi-bility of more agencies chartering academic shipshas been proposed to eliminate possible duplica-tion of capability. Avoiding duplication may alsoinvolve sharing appropriate technological devel-opments and many routine data-collection effortsamong agencies like Navy, Coast Guard, andNOAA.

While coordination cannot cure all inefficien-cies, it offers the possibility for improvements. Adisadvantage of such a system is that it wouldcomplicate specific tasks and thus decreaseflexibility. Since complexity might be inefficientfor small programs and small ship operations, asimple analysis of specific costs and benefitswould be useful prior to any major changes in thepresent system.

Ships-of-Opportunity

Two types of ships-of-opportunity programsare now in effect. One program involves theWorld Meteorological Organizat ion (WMO),


that transmits ships’ officers’ observations ofweather and sea conditions by radio to par-ticipating countries. 12 The U.S. Navy’s FleetNumerical Oceanography Center (FNOC) atMonterrey, Calif., processes such data for theUnited States and provides it for distribution tocivilian users through NOAA.

The other ships-of-opportunity program in-volves specif ic merchant ships that t raverseremote sealanes where oceanographic data aresparse and are needed. I t is a cooperat iveNOAA/Navy program and at present is used tocollect temperature/depth data exclusively. Thecost of collecting such data is relatively lowbecause the participating ships provide the man-power and the ships without cost. Navy furnishesthe ships with expendable bathythermographprobes (XBTs), shipboard launchers, and re-corders. Both NOAA and Navy provide liaisonservices to the participating ships.

The principal uses of data thus collected arefor weather forecasting, ship operations androuting, commercial fishing, and some large-scale research projects. In the future, such data-collection systems could be expanded for climateand pollution studies. The ships-of-opportunityobservations are especially useful if combinedwith measurements from buoys, satellites, andother stations.

The present NOAA/Navy ships-of-opportu-nity program operates through Navy’s FNOC.Approximately 125 ships of both U.S. andforeign registry participate directly or throughspecific research programs, NOAA and Navyhave signed a memorandum of agreement (No-vember-December 1979) to enable future expan-sion of the program.

While the watch officers’ meteorological reportto WMO’s net requires little technological sup-port other than the radio net itself, the NOAA/Navy program requires considerable technologi-cal support. The shipboard instrumentation arefurnished to the ship, and the ship’s crew receivethe data, “read” it, identify critical character-istics, and code the information into a standard

I ZIntergovernmenta] Oceanographic World Meteorological Orga -

nization, IGOSS The In tegrated Global Ocean S ta t ion Sys tem,1979.

format. The data are then sent by radio messageto FNOC; the actual traces are sent by mail.NOAA and Navy liaison with the participatingships is of great importance to the successfuloperation of this program by providing instru-mentation, instructions for their use, and discus-sions about operational details and problems.

There are several improvements being plannedfor the ships-of-opportunity program. Represent-atives from FNOC state that improved shipboardsystems could enhance the program’s data recov-ery rate and provide more accurate information.The research community, which has had data-handl ing problems with the t races f rom theXBTs, is testing a new system that provides ashipboard trace and a magnetic digital recordingof the trace. NOAA is in the process of develop-ing a shipboard automated station to receive,store, and transmit meteorological and oceano-graphic data, Moreover, NOAA’s Public Weath-er Service is developing the Shipboard Environ-mental Data Acquisition System (SEAS), that willuse communication satellites for relaying data toshore. The following sensors have been suggestedfor SEAS:

1.

2.

3.

4.

a module for routine meteorological obser-vations,an expendable ocean temperature and cur-rent-velocity profiler,an expendable ocean temperature and con-ductivity profiler, anda doppler speed log-current profiler.

The cost of each SEAS unit will depend onwhat sensors are included, but the minimum costwill probably be around $15,000. If meteorologi-cal, ocean sea-surface temperature, XBT traceinformation, and ocean-current information areincluded, the cos t may we l l r un c lo se t o$l00,000/unit. An analysis of optimum con-figurations to meet varying needs has not beenconducted.

Commercial ships may furnish substant ia lobservational data of importance to oceanogra-phy, meteorology, and climatology, provided in-struments can be devised that operate with aminimum of attendance and provided the infor-mation generated can be effectively transmittedto data centers and thence to users. Satellite com-


munication has made transmission possible; in-tegrated circuit technology may make suitable in-struments possible. Simple and precise naviga-tion systems can assure correct navigationallabeling of data. It may be possible, though con-troversial, to require all ships that receive theU.S. weather services to carry transponders to ac-tive satellite interrogation systems.

A modest scale study of the utilization of ships-of-opportunity that explores the technological

need and feasibility could be undertaken. Such astudy should involve fishermen and cargo shipoperators as well as scientists and technologists.

NOAA plans for an initiative with the SEASprogram is a first step for an expanded ships-of-opportunity program. However, some cost andbenefit analysis of different approaches to instru-ment and data networks, as well as research pro-gram needs, would be desirable before a majorcommitment is made for program expansion.


SUBMERSIBLES

Both manned and unmanned submersibles areuniquely capable of certain tasks in observingand conducting research activities below theocean surface. Unmanned submersibles , orROVs, are a burgeoning technology that givesthe marine scientist an underwater view of theocean via closed-circuit television (CCTV). Theyare used primarily by the industrial sector, and inthe past several years have overtaken mannedsubmersibles in number and use.

Manned Submersibles

There are numerous operational manned sub-mersibles in the world, many of which are in usein the offshore oil industry. For this study, em-phasis is directed to active U.S. vessels perform-ing oceanographic research under Federal Gov-ernment support . For comparative purposes,submersibles of the private sector (national andinternational ) and of foreign governments arediscussed.

U.S. Government Sector

The Navy. –Five submersibles are owned bythe U.S. Navy (table 17), but one of these, theAlvin, is managed by UNOLS and is operated bythe Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst i tut ion.This deep-submergence research vehicle (with itstender ship Lulu) is designated a national facility

1 JUni\,er~it ~,. Nat ion a] Oceanography ic Laboratory System, ~P”p,,rtun[t~cs fi)r ocwnographlc” Rescorch, Alzvn, d e s c r i p t i v e p a m -

phlet, 1978.

and is available to researchers through applica-tion to UNOLS for vessel time.

The Trieste II, technically a bathyscaphe sub-mersible with the greatest operating depth, hasbeen used for geological investigations of theocean bottom at 20,000 ft below the surface. Twosubmersibles similar to the Alvin –the Sea Cliffand the Turtle — are used by Navy for locatingand recovering small objects from the ocean bot-tom, as well as for performing geological re-search. The NR-1, a nuclear powered researchsubmarine, has been used for geological researchand classified projects for Navy. Most aspects ofNR-1 specifications and characteristics are clas-sified.

Acquisition and operating costs for Navy sub-mersibles Turtle, Sea Cliff, Trieste-II, and NR-1are shown in table 18. These data, supplied by

Table 18.—Costs for Navy Submersibles

Tries/e // (DSV-1 )Acquisition cost (1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8,500,000Operation and maintenance (fiscal year 1981). 1,460,000

Turf/e (DSV-3)Acquisition cost (1963) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,500,000Operation and maintenance (fiscal year 1981). 1,960,000

Sea Clitf (DSV-4)Acquisition cost (1963) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,500,000Operation and maintenance (fiscal year 1981). 1,906,000

NR-1Acquisition cost (1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67,000,000Operation and maintenance (fiscal year 1981). 3,760,000

NOTE Submersible acqulsltlon costs are In then-year dollars Operation andmaintenance costs are In fiscal year 1981 constant budget dollars

SOURCE U S Navy

Table 17.—Federally Owned and Operated U.S. Submersibles

Operating Power Crew/ Manipulators/ Speed (kts) Endurance (hrs)Vessel Date built Length (ft) depth (ft) supply observers viewports cruise/max. cruise/maximum

UNIOLSAlvin . . . . . . 1964 25 12,000 Battery 1/2 1/4 1/2 —

NavySea Cliff . . . 1968 26 20,000a Battery 2/1 2/5 5/25 812

Turtle . . . . . 1968 26 10,000 Battery 2/1 2/5 5/25 8/2Trieste II. . 1969 78 20,000 Battery 2/1 1/3 1 .5/11.9NR-1 . . . . . .

—1969 136 — Nuclear 71 — — —

a~y 1982SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment


Photo credff U .S Navy

NR- 1, Navy’s underwater research and ocean-engineering vehicle being launched, January 1969, New London, Corm.

Photo credit U S Navy

Trieste II

Photo credit U S Navy

Sea Cliff


Navy, do not include costs for special supportequipment, field change modifications, majormaintenance and overhaul, support ships andstaff, and special facilities.

Alvin is the most capable submersible availableto civilian oceanographers, and as such it is ingreat demand. In the summer of 1978, the Alvinwas used to explore waters near the Azores ongeophysical and geological research. Subsequent-ly, it was used to make a few dives at Woods Holeon fisheries research. After a few days of upkeep,the Alvin assisted in setting up a biological sta-tion at 12,000 ft below the ocean’s surface nearPuerto Rico; and at the start of 1979, the Alvinwent to the Galapagos Islands to study biologicalconditions around the hot thermal vents previ-ously discovered at a depth of about 9,000 ft. In1975 Alvin was not fully utilized but by 1978 andthrough 1980, total at-sea days ranged from 197to 228 per year and the total number of diveswent from 81 to 117 per year. These numbersplus the necessary port preparation time repre-sent essentially full utilization.

UNOLS management of Alvin is through anAlvin review committee, consisting of 10 mem-bers, that convenes annually to review accom-plishments, discuss problems, review proposals,and recommend scheduling of the Alvin t ime.In 1977 UNOLS issued a report that summarizedthe following uses of Alvin in geological andbiological studies:14

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

� �

investigating seafloor strata;studying sedimentary processes in the ben-thic boundary layer;surveying the ocean bottom to help evolvethe theory of plate tectonics;conducting geochemical experiments on theocean floor;measuring geodetic characteristics (crustaluplift in an area of seafloor spreading);utilizing new instrumentation for studies atvery great depths;making single-site periodic surveys of deep-sea biology;finding new deep-sea species;

tuniver~ity. Nat ional Oceanography ic Laboratory System, RePfJrtOJ the UNOLS A lzv”n Re~~ew Com m~ttee to the UNOLS A dmsoryCouncil of The Continued Role of DSR V Alzin, March 1979.

. .

. sampling deep-sea bacteria; and

. setting U p deep-sea bottom biological ex-periments.

The UNOLS report recommended that at leasta 3-year coordinating, planning, and fundingsupport effort be established for the Alvin t oassure most effective use and that actual yearlyfunding be apportioned among sponsoring agen-cies. Recently, in 1979, UNOLS scheduled theAlvin to spend alternate years operating out ofthe U.S. east and west coasts, with 1980 as a westcoast year.

In 1977, a memorandum of understandingamong Navy, NOAA, and NSF recognized theimportance of the Alvin and concluded that:

●

●

●

The supporting agencies will provide operat-ing support funds through December 31,1980.Major programs requiring the use of theAlvin should be identified 2 years in ad-vance.A full schedule should be 180 days (ratherthan the previous schedule of 150) .-

Alvin was built in 1964 at a cost of just under$1 million and its hull converted to titanium in1973 for an additional $1 million. Its replace-ment cost is probably $4 million to $5 million.The yearly operating cost for Alvin and its sup-port ship was $1.9 million in fiscal year 1980,based on 200 operational days per year. Whilethe Alvin is considered in good condition for con-tinued operations, its support ship Lulu has forsome time needed upgrading or replacement.Various alternatives for an Alvin support shiphave been proposed.

In the fall of 1979 a UNOLS-sponsored study,Research Submersible Facility Requirements forShort- and Long-Term Needs Within the U.S.Scientific and Technical Community, com-menced. The study was designed by the Alvin Re-view Committee of UNOLS and is jointly fundedby the. U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval Research,NOAA (Research and Development Special Pro-jects Office), and NSF (Office of OceanographicFacilities and Support). The objectives of thestudy are to develop a comprehensive facilitiesplan which identif ies and sat isf ies UNOLSsubmersible science requirements from the pres-


Photo credlf Woods Ho/e Oceanographic Institution

DSRV—Alvin

ent through the year 1990. The plan will considerLulu/Alvin modifications, leasing of submer-sibles systems, capital expenditures for reactiva-tion of existing facilities, construction of new oradditional systems, and plans for maintenanceand operations.

NOAA. –For several years NOAA has beeninvolved in planning manned undersea facilities.In 1979, an analysis prepared by NOAA’s oceanengineering office concluded that there was aneed for a high-performance, long-range sub-mersible with diver-support capabilities. Plansfor this submersible, known as Oceanlab, werebegun. Because of high cost estimates (over $25million) for Oceanlab and disagreements over thescientific needs, the project was shelved and the

NAS Ocean Sciences Board was requested torestudy requirements and to consider alternativeapproaches. That study considered a variety ofsurface and subsurface vehicles to satisfy a rangeof requirements for research tasks requiringunderwater observation and manipulation.

As a result of the study and of decisions byNOAA, Oceanlab funds were reprogrammed to anew undersea research program. The programplans prepared in 1980 included the support ofHydrolab, the only U.S. undersea manned habi-tat in operat ion. This faci l i ty is located atFairleigh Dickinson University’s West IndiesLaboratory at St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Thelaboratory sits in 49 ft of water at the head of SaltRiver Submarine Canyon, off the northern coast


of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. The scienceprogram focuses on marine problems common tomany U.S. continental coast regions.

Other segments of the new undersea programare regional facility projects which have beenproposed by the University of Southern Califor-nia, the University of North Carolina, and theUniversity of Hawaii. Diving and other facilitiesare planned to be located at these institutionsunder NOAA sponsorship.

NOAA also pursues an active leasing programwhereby shallow-diving submersibles are char-tered to conduct surveys and research. One ofthese, the manned submersible Makalii (formerlyknown as Star 11) is owned by the University ofHawaii and operated by it for NOAA’s RegionalUndersea Research Program. Makalii is a two-man (one pilot and one observer), one-atmos-phere vehicle capable of diving to a maximumdepth of 1,200 ft. In addition to direct in situobservation, i t is capable of implanting in-struments, retrieving samples, and conductingexperiments using its manipulation and its exter-nally mounted tools:

Participants in these diving programs, general-ly from 1- to 2-months duration, are from Gov-ernment and academia. To date the major ap-plications have been for baseline environmentalmeasurements, monitoring and assessment ofareas planned for ocean dumping; undersea min-ing; oil and gas production activities; develop-ment of. offshore powerplants and deep-waterstructures; fisheries research and management;and sediment transport studies assessing the fateof pollutants and bottom nutrients. The total an-nual NOAA funds expended for manned sub-mersibles leasing are listed below. These funds donot include NOAA’s annual contribution to thesupport of Alvin in the past 5 years.

Money spent onFiscal yea r submersibles leasing1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 234,8751976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210,6001977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493,800*1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199,800

Total. . . . . . . . , . . . . $1,139,075

— ——.*Of these funds, $156,000 were contributed by USGS.

U.S. Private Sector

Currently operating manned submersibles ofthe private sector that have over 600 f t ofoperating depth capability are listed in table 19.Of the vehicles listed, four are operated by non-profit organizations or academic institutions sole-ly for research (Diaphus, Johnson-Sea-Link I &II, Makalii).

The Johnson-Sea-Link vehicles lockout diversat depths to 1,000 ft, operate without Federalsupport, and annually compile diving times inexcess of 120 days. The remaining two vehicles,Makalii and Diaphus, although supported bytheir operators, conduct much of their divingwith funds derived from projects with FederalGovernment support. The remainder of the sub-mersibles listed are operated by private, profit-making organizations which are primarily in-volved in offshore oil- and gas-support work.

Three groups of vehicles–Arms, Jim, a n dWasp – are tethered submersibles which aredesigned to provide manipulation for relatively

Photo credit National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm/n/sfrat/on

The Jim, a tethered manned submersible


Table 19.—U.S. Private-Sector Submersibles (Manned)

Operating Power Crew/ Manipulators/Vehicle Date built Length (ft) depth (ft) supply observers viewports Operator.Arms 1, II, and Illa . . . . .

Asherah. . . . . . . . . . . . .

AugustePiccard . . . . . . . . . . . .

Beaverb . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Deep Quest. . . . . . . . . .

Diaphus. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Jim (14 each.)a

Johnson-Sea-Link l&llb

Mermaid II. . . . . . . . . . .

Nekton A, B, & C. . . . . .

Pioneer . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pisces VI . . . . . . . . . . . .

Snooper ... , , . . . . . . .

Makalii. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waspa . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1976–19781964

1978

1968

1967

1974

1974

197119751972

1968197019721978

1976

1969

1966

1977

aTelheredb Diver lockout


8.5

17.0

93.5

24.0

39.9

19.8

—

22.8

17.9

15.0

17.0

20.0

14.5

17.7

—

—

3,000

600

2,000

2,700

8,000

1,200

1,500

3,000

1,000

1,000

1,200

6,600

1,000

1,200

2,000

complex tasks, but are limited to work at

Battery

Battery

Battery

Battery

Battery

Battery

Human

Battery

Battery

Battery

Battery

Battery

Battery

Battery

Surface

1/1

1/1

6/3

1/4

2/2

1/1

1/0

1/3

1/1

1/1

1/2

1/2

1/1

1/1

1/10

3/Bow dome

0/6

0/1

l/Bow dome

212

l/Bow dome

2/1

l/Panoramic

l/Bow dome

l/Bow dome

2/3

2/3

1/10

1/6

2/Bow dome

Oceaneering International,Santa Barbara, Calif. .

New England Ocean Services,Boston, Mass.

Gulf Maritime Explorations,Solona Beach, Cal if.

International UnderwaterContractors, City Island, N.Y.

Lockheed Missiles & SpaceCo., San Diego, Cal if.

Texas A&M University, CollegeStation, Tex.

Oceaneering International,Houston, Tex.

Harbor Branch Foundation, Ft.Pierce, Fla.


Nekton, Inc., San Diego, Cal if.

Martech International,Houston, Tex.


Undersea Graphics, Inc.,Torrance, Cal if.

University of Hawaii, Honolulu,Hawaii

Oceaneering International,Houston, Tex.

aspecific site. The Arms vehicles are, essentially,one-atmosphere observation/work bells, con-nected by cable to the surface, designed to behighly maneuverable within a limited area, andcapable of high-dexterity manipulation. The Jimand Wasp vehicles, on the other hand, are one-atmosphere diving suits which are lowered on astage or are free-swimming (i. e., Wasp) and arecontrolled by the operator inside.

Industrial vehicles perform a variety of tasks:pipeline and structure inspection, bottom survey-ing/mapping, search and retrieval of lost andabandoned objects, exploratory drilling support,geological and biological sampling, coral har-vesting, and maintenance repair. Additionally,these vehicles can and sometimes do performscientific research tasks under contract to FederalGovernment agencies.

At present there are two submersibles underconstruction in the private sector in the UnitedStates. Since the commercial market is so dy-namic and technological innovations are so fre-quent, all manned industrial vehicles are gener-ally built under contract and not for the specula-tive market.

Foreign Sector

A listing of manned submersibles operated byvarious foreign governments is presented in table20.

The manned submersible operators in the for-eign private sector, particularly the British andFrench, are far more act ive than their U.S.counterparts. This activity is centered aroundNorth Sea and Mediterranean oil and gas sup-port. Whereas most U.S. private sector vehicles


Table 20.—Foreign Government-Supported Submersibles

OperatingCountry Date built depth (ft) Crew/observors OperatorCanada

Pisces IV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1974

1970

6,600

2,000

1/2

1/4

Department of theEnvironment, Victoria, B.C.

Canadian Armed Forces,Halifax, N.S.

CNEXO, ToulonFrench Navy, ToulonFrench Navy, ToulonCNEXO, Toulon

Italian Navy.

JAMSTEC, Yokosuka.

NANA

NA

Royal Swedish Navy

VNIRObInstitute of Oceanology,Moscow

VNIROInstitute of Oceanology,

MoscowInstitute of Oceanology,Moscow

VNIROVNIRO

NA

SDL-1a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FranceCyana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Griffon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .LaLicornea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SM-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

197019731980

Under construction

9,8431,969

6561,968

1/22/11/41/2

ItalyMSM-la . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Under construction 1,968 NA

JapanDSV-2K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Under construct ion 6,561 1/2

Peoples Republic of ChinaSM-358a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SM-360a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19791980

984984

1/31/3

Rumania(Name NA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1979 984 1/3

SwedenURFa

U.S.S.R.Atlant (3 ea.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Argus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1978 1,509 5/25

19751975

6608,968

1/12/1

Benthos 300. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Osmot Ra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19761980

990990

2/4212

Pisces Vll &Xl . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1975 6,600 2/1

Sever 2(2 ea.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tinro 2 (2 ea.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

YugoslaviaMermaid Va. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19761975

6,6051,321

1/21/1

1979 984 2/2

aD iver lockoutbAlt l.)nlon Research Institute of Marine Flsherles and Oceanography.NA.information not available

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

employ very basic instrumentation, such as, visu-al observations, CCTV, and still photography,the European operators use a variety of sophisti-cated electronics and support systems in additionto optical- and direct-viewing techniques.

There are approximately 56 non-U. S. operat-ing submersibles in the private sector. Table 21shows the national distribution, type, and depthrange of these capabilities. The surface supportships of European operat ing companies areequipped with highly sophisticated data acquisi-tion and processing systems which permit onlineprocessing and presentation of the data withinhours after it has been obtained and, in some in-stances, in real time.

Comparison of SubmersibleCapabilities

United States—Federal v. Private Sector

Since the Federal submersible fleet is designedto conduct military and scientific missions, andmost of the private fleet is aimed at conductingindustrial work tasks, a comparison of theircapabilities has limited usefulness, An analysis ofthe diversity of vehicle capabilities in the Federal.v. private fleet and the reasons for this diversitycan help to explain this situation.

Dep th Capab i l i t y . –Fede ra l submers ib l e shave a far greater diving capability than those of


Table 21 .—Foreign Private-Sector Submersibles

Maximum depth OneCountry range (ft) atmosphere Lockout ADS Obs/work bell

Brazil. . . . . . . . . . . 984 — 1 — —Canada . . . . . . . . . 1,500 2 1 — —France. . . . . . . . . . 6,600 10 6 — 3Italy. . . . . . . . . . . . 3,000 2 1 — 2Japan. . . . . . . . . . . 984 2 — — —Netherlands . . . . . 843 1 — — —Norway . . . . . . . . . 1,000 — — — 1Switzerland. . . . . . 1,640 1 — — —United Kingdom. . 3,281 12 5 4 —West Germany . . . 984 — 2 — —

Totals . . . . . . 30 16 4 6—


the private sector because of the needs of militarymissions. At present there is no industrial marketfor vehicles with depth capabilities of 10,000 to20,000 ft; although there are identified needs forscient i f ic research to be conducted at thosedepths. Conducting dives with, e.g., the Alvin in500 ft or so of water is not a cost-effective utiliza-t ion of i ts capabil i t ies . For this reason, theNOAA lease program uses shallow-diving indus-trial submersibles to satisfy its shallow-water re-quirements.

Lockout Capability. – Lockout is the capabil-ity of a submersible to let personnel exit or enterthe vehicle while it is submerged. This capabilitycomplicates the design of the submersible be-cause of the need to transport and support divers,and it provides increased ballasting and debal-lasting of the vehicle to hold it at a constantdepth.

There are no Federal vehicles, except the DeepSubmergence Rescue Vehicles (Mystic andAvalon) capable of lockout. (These vehicles canonly lockout in a dry-transfer mode, not in thenormal dry-to-wet mode. ) The Navy would nor-mally rely on more conventional diving tech-niques (saturation bell) if a diver were required.Industrial lockout vehicles are necessary since adiver (who may be a welder, mechanic, or othertechnician) can be delivered to some worksitemore efficiently than he could be with a conven-tional diving bell.

Specialized Vehicles. –The specialized natureof industrial vehicles (one-atmosphere submer-sibles, ADS, observation bells, lockout submer-

sibles) reflects the wide variety of the work tasksand the constant competition within industry.For example, ADS (a one-atmosphere under-water suit) is meant to compete with the use of ascuba diver since it provides near-human manip-ulative capabilities and does not require lengthydecompression schedules. The observation bellscompete with one-atmosphere submersibles byproviding unlimited power (through an umbili-cal), greater maneuvering capability, and greatermanipulative capability for working within alimited (300-ft radius) area around structures.

Expense. – On a vehicle-by-vehicle basis theFederal fleet is more expensive to maintain,simply because there is more to maintain. Thereis more complexity in a 10,000- or 20,000-ft vehi-cle than in a 600- or 1,000-ft vehicle. It followsthat normal maintenance is more extensive, andequipment components are more expensive.Also, lack of competition in the Federal fleet andunique uses of vehicles may contribute to highercosts.

U.S. Federal Government v.Foreign Federal Government

If U.S. Navy submersibles are considered sci-entific assets, then the U.S. Federal submersiblefleet is fully comparable to that of any other na-tion. If Alvin alone is considered ( the onlyFederal submersible solely dedicated to science),then the U.S. Federal fleet may soon fall behindthose of other nations, particularly France andthe Soviet Union. The following discussion relates


only to Alvin and does not consider U.S. Navyvehicles.

At present France has a vehicle, Cyana, whichis essentially the depth-equal of the Alvin as well

as its equal in most other major categories. Whenthe French vehicle SM-97 is launched (projectedfor 1983 at this time), France’s fleet will be aheadof that of the United States in depth capabilityand in numbers of vehicles (if Cyana remainsactive).

The Soviet Union now has 11 known vehiclesunder the aegis of its Institute of Oceanology andthe All Union Research Inst i tute of MarineFisheries and Oceanography. A lockout submer-sible and a 660-ft depth-capable habitat are nowunder construction. In addi t ion, the SovietUnion is currently attempting to have a 20,000-ftvehicle built in Canada; but, at this time, theCanadian firm is experiencing difficulty in ob-taining necessary export licenses. At this mo-ment, the Soviet fleet exceeds the U.S. fleet innumbers of vehicles.

It should be pointed out that the only ad-vantage France and the U.S.S.R. will have is adepth advantage. How much this is worth from ascientific viewpoint is speculative. In the sophis-tication of its scientific equipment, the UnitedStates probably leads other countries and appearslikely to maintain this advantage in the future. Infact, the major scientific equipment on the SovietPisces vehicles were made in the United States.

Future Plans. –There are, at present , noplans in the Federal Government to build newsubmersibles, although the UNOLS study groupis considering whether this should be done. TheUNOLS group is also considering alternate ap-proaches, such as deep ROVs.

Remotely Operated Vehicles

ROVs, or unmanned submersibles, have beenin existence for the past 27 years; but theirutilization in ocean projects as practical, eco-nomic, work stations has only recently been ac-cepted. Since 1976 their numbers have increased;and while there is a wide variety of ROVs, theycan be grouped in four categories:

●

●

●

●

Tethered, free-swimming vehicles. – Pow-ered and controlled through a surface-con-nected cable; self-propelled; capable of 3-dimensional maneuvering, remote viewingthrough CCTV.Towed vehicles. – Powered and controlledthrough a surface-connected cable; pro-pelled by surface ship; capable of maneuver-ing only forward and up/down by cablewinch; remote viewing through CCTV.Untethered vehicles. –Self-powered; con-trolled by acoustic commands or prepro-grammed course; self-propelled; capable ofmaneuvering in three dimensions; no remoteviewing capability.Bottom-crawling vehicles. – Powered andcontrolled through a surface-connected ca-ble; maneuvered by friction-drive againstthe bottom or a structure; remote viewingthrough CCTV.

Industry is the major user of ROVs, and hereagain the primary employment is in the offshoreoil and gas industry. Table 22 presents the majortasks performed by the different types of vehiclesfor their various customers. The advantages ofROVs over manned vehicles are their unlimitedpower (which, except for untethered vehicles, isdelivered from the surface station via an um-bilical cable), their relatively low cost, and thefact that they do not jeopardize human life. Ma-jor disadvantages are that the cable frequentlyentangles or breaks, and the high-hydrodynamicdrag on the cable at depths greater than 3,000 ftmakes the ROV cumbersome to maneuver.

U.S. Government Sector

The distribution of federally operated ROVs islisted in table 16. As shown, the primary–andalmost exclusive — user of tethered, free-swim-ming ROVs in the U.S. Government is Navy.Although Navy uses these ROVs occasionally forvery specific scientific research, they are usedprimarily for salvage and weapon recovery.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, WoodsHole Oceanographic Institution, and Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory are academic in-stitutions operating the federally funded deep-towed vehicles, Deep Tow, Angus, and Katz Fish.


Table 22.—ROV Applications

Industrial.— —

MiIitary Scientific/research

Tethered, free-swimming vehicles— ———— — —..—

Inspection Inspection InspectionMonitoring Search/identification SurveySurvey Installation/retrieval Installation/retrievalDiver assistanceSearch/identificationInstallation/retrievalCleaning

Towed vehiclesSurvey Geological/geophysical investigations

Broad area reconnaissanceWater analysisBiological/geological samplingBioassayManganese nodule survey

Search/identification/locationSurveyFine-g rained mappingWater samplingRadiation measurements

Untethered vehiclesIceberg measurements Conductivity/temperature/pressure-

profilingWake turbulence measurementsUnder-ice acoustic profiling

BathymetryPhotographyArctic iceUnderside roughness

None Implanting ocean-floor instrumentsBottom-crawling vehiclesPipe trenchingCable burialBulldozingDredgingSurvey/inspect ion


Table 23.—U.S. Government-Supported ROVs—— ——Type Depth (ft) Operator

Photo cred(t U S Navy

Navy’s tethered, free-swimming CUR V-///

Two of these vehicles, Deep Tow and Angus, arecapable of operating to depths of 20,000 ft (table23). The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena,Calif., is developing (with Federal funds) thetowed vehicle Digitow to serve as a testbed foroceanographic equipment as it is developed.

The untethered vehicles listed in table 23 thatare not Navy-supported are being developed by

Tethered tree-swimmingSnoopy (2 ea.). . 1,500Deep Drone. . . . 2,000CURV II (2 ea.). 2,500URS-1. . . . . . . . . 3,000CURV Ill. . . . . . . 10,000RUWS . . . . . . . . 20,000

TowedRUFAS II . . . . . . 2,400

Digitow . . . . . . . 20,000Teleprobe . . . . . 20,000Deep Tow . . . . . 20,000Angus . . . . . . . . 20,000Katz Fish. . . . . . 2,500

UntetheredEave East . . . . . 150Eave West. . . . . 200SPURV 1. . . . . . . 12,000SPURV II . . . . . . 5,000UFSS . . . . . . . . . 1,500

U.S. NavyU.S. NavyU.S. NavyU.S. NavyU.S. NavyU.S. Navya

NOAA (National MarineFisheries Service)

Jet Propulsion LaboratoryU.S. NavyScrippsCWoods HoleCLamontC

University of New HampshiredU.S. NavydUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of WashingtonU.S. Navy

avehl~]e was lost in 15,000 ft Of water In February 1980. plans to recover (t are

not firm at this timebFunded by National Aeronaut ics and Space Admlmstratlon and National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Admlnlstrattoncconstructlon funded by the U S Navyd Fu nded by the U s Geological Survey, Department of the Interior


80-710 0 - 81 - 6


USGS to demonstrate the feasibility of under-water-structure (fixed platforms and pipelines)inspection in the oil and gas industry. The resultsof this program could find application in thescientific research community.

Four towed vehicles, financed in part or en-tirely by the Federal Government, are used forscientific research: Rufas II, Digitow, Deep Tow,and Katz Fish. They are employed in fisheries re-search and geophysical research and surveys.

NOAA’s Office of Ocean Engineering con-ducted a comprehensive study of ROVs world-w i d e15 and prepared a program developmentplan for ROV instrumentation and support sys-tems. NOAA also conducted a short-term evalua-tion of a leased, tethered, free-swimming vehicleto assess its potential use for scientific research.16

It appears that no decision has been made onwhether NOAA will pursue development of thistechnology.

U.S. Private Sector

The six U.S. manufacturers of tethered, free-swimming ROVs have produced 57 vehicles overthe past 5 years. Of the vehicles produced, 14have been sold to foreign customers and 43 toU.S. companies. Private vehicles in this categoryare shallower diving (6,600 ft is the maximumoperating depth) than those of the Government,but are in every other way capable of performingsimilar tasks. Until now, virtually all of thesevehicles were used in support of offshore oil andgas, but in the summer of 1980, a commerciallyoperated vehicle was used for the first time in ascientific endeavor to study reef fish in the Gulf ofMexico for the Bureau of Land Management(BLM). There are no deep-towed vehicles knownto be operated by the U.S. commercial sector;although one U.S. company does manufacturesuch devices for foreign customers.

1~-R~ F~~~k Busby Associates, Inc. , Remotely Operated Vehicles,prepared for U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean Engineering, August1979.

16U,s, Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmos-pheric Administration, Manned Undersea Science and Technology,Remotely Operated Vehicle Scientific App[icatton Assessment, De-cember 1979.

Foreign Government Sector

There are at least eight foreign governmentsinvolved in either the utilization or develop-ment of ROVs. All vehicle development in theU. S. S. R., can be classified as governmental. TheUnited Kingdom, on the other hand, has an in-dustry/government program under the OffshoreSupplies Office whereby the government fundssome portion of the developmental costs, and in-dustry the remainder. If the resulting technologyis profitable, then the government’s funds arereturned and the vehicle belongs to industry, TheUnited Kingdom is now supporting an ambitiousROV development program for wide applicationin the North Sea oil and gas industry.

The Soviet Union’s current activities withROVs is minimal at present. Until 2 years ago,the U.S.S.R.’S Institute of Oceanology developedtwo ROVs for scientific research; one of these isnow operating. Research and development is cur-rently underway to develop for scientific inves-tigation an untethered preprogrammed vehiclewith pattern-recognition capabilities as well astowed vehicles for deep-water reconnaissance.

Foreign Private Sector

Except in one instance, tethered, free-swim-ming ROVs of private sector operators and man-ufacturers are aimed at the offshore oil and gasservice support market. By and large, the vehiclesemployed and manufactured are much like thoseof the United States in capabilities. To date, 375of these ROVs have been manufactured inCanada, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands,Norway, Sweden, West Germany, and the UnitedKingdom. The leading manufacturers are inCanada (35 vehicles) and France (164 vehicles).Unlike those in other countries, all but three ofthe French vehicles are defense-oriented. TheSocietie Eca of Meudon has produced over 160ROV’s called Pap-104, which are used by variousNorth Atlant ic Treaty Organizat ion’s NavalForces to identify and neutralize explosive ord-nance on the sea floor. There are, in addition,five deep-towed 20,000-ft vehicles in the foreignprivate sector. Three are found in Germany andtwo in Japan.


BUOY, MOORED, AND OCEAN-FLOOR SYSTEMS

Many varieties of buoys, moored systems, andocean-floor systems are in use in oceanographicresearch and monitoring.

Buoys include surface and subsurface floatsthat may be either moored or drifting. Theyusually contain instrument packages with sen-sors, power supplies, data recording gear, andsome means of communication or data transmis-sion to shore. Large buoys may be moored byship and stay in one place collecting data formany months; smaller units may be droppedfrom aircraft to make measurements for a fewdays. Buoys may be launched by ships or aircraftto drift with ocean currents or winds and totransmit data as long as they can be tracked.

Moored systems usually consist of one or moresensors and other instruments that are fixed inthe ocean using cables or lines, anchors, andsubsea flotation. They may be used in very deepwater, making measurements anywhere from justbelow the sea surface to the ocean floor. Ocean-floor systems are assemblies of instruments whichare contained on a structure that is fixed or an-chored to the bottom. Both of these systems,when used in the deep ocean, require a remotepower supply, reliable data transmission to thesurface, and effective installation procedures.These systems are usually launched from ships,but some smaller units can be airdropped.

Instrumented, buoy, and other systems arebeing used worldwide to monitor meteorologi-cal and oceanographic conditions and, in somecases, to transmit the data to shore via satel-lite communication links. Academic institutionssuch as Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and theUniversity of Miami have developed sophisticateddesigns and deployment techniques for buoys tocollect data for a variety of oceanographic pur-poses. Buoy systems supported by NOAA and afew other agencies have been developed mainlyfor specific program data-collection purposes –e.g., the data buoy program for meeting weatherservice needs of measurements over the ocean.

Buoys

Moored Buoys

The NOAA Data Buoy Office (NDBO) ownsand operates the large U.S. buoys that collectsynoptic ocean and meteorological data. Each ofthe 19 moored buoys now operating around theU.S. coastline, has one of four different hull con-figurations:

●

●

●

●

✍✎

A 10-m discus-shaped hull displacing about60 tons, about half of which is hull weight.This buoy carries a 2- to 5-ton payload ofbatteries and instruments; the remainder isballast.A 12-m discus-shaped hull that displacesabout 100 tons, and carries about 2- to 5-tons of payload.A 5-m discus-shaped hull, displacing about6.5 tons and carrying 2 tons of payload.A 6-m boat-shaped hull (called NOMAD),displacing 8 tons, about one-fourth of whichis payload.

Photo credit General Dynamics

NOAA moored data buoy


Five different sensor/communication packagesare used on buoys to collect data that is principal-ly meteorological but includes wave and sea-surface temperature measurements. For the 10-and 12-m buoys, goals are for 1 -year unattendedoperat ion, year ly maintenance, and overhaulevery 3 years. The smaller buoys have the sameoperation and maintenance goals but requireyearly overhaul. Because many of the buoys havesome data collection and transmitting problems,the program is not yet fully operational.

A 1978 report by the Director of NDBO out-lined the uses and maintenance of data buoys. Itnoted that NDBO serviced four moored buoysabout once every 36 days from 1972 to 197517 andvisited 15 buoys once every 150 days in 1977. Sev-eral buoys were lost in severe weather due to top-pling, sinking, and other reasons. In assessingdata collection, the report revealed that from1972 to 1975, 220 synoptic weather messageswere transmitted per buoy per year. In 1977 thesemessages increased to 2,550. Over and above thislevel, in 1977 the buoys transmitted 22,000 wavespectra and 8,000 bathythermograph reports.Data quality was reported to have improved;errors in measuring air temperature and wind-speed were reduced by large factors; and errors inbarometric pressure and wind direction were cutin half. Presently, bathythermograph data arenot collected because of technical difficulties.

The National Data Buoy program has not suc-ceeded in attracting much interest from oceanog-raphers — again, in part, because of the s t rongmeteorological /weather service orientation,rather than an oceanographic orientation. Forexample, the data from the present oceano-graphic data buoys are not timely nor routinelyavailable from the National Weather Service orthe National Oceanographic Data Center.

Use of moored buoys as meteorological andclimatological benchmark stations at the formerweathership stations and at other representativeplaces in the oceans has been advocated by scien-t is ts . Continued surface observat ions at theformer weathership sites would provide valuable

‘7J. C. McCall, NDBO M~sston and Payloads, prc=parcd for U.S.Department of Commerce, NOAA Data Buoy Office, paperpresented at Marine Electronics Communications Panel of U.S. ~Japan Cooperative Program in National Resources, Tokyo, 1978.

extensions in the lengths of the various surfaceclimatic records. They would also improve nu-merical a tmospheric circulat ion models; al-though the absence of upper air data wouldrather limit their usefulness at present. More-over, midocean buoys, if maintained over an in-definite period, could provide needed time-seriesdata at fixed locations in the oceans.

However, at a capital cost of about $400,000each, in addition to expenses for annual main-tenance, space-satellite data transmission, anddata recording, the funds needed for this purposeare considerable.

A problem facing researchers who need global,synoptic ocean measurements is whether verylarge numbers of open-ocean buoy systems couldbe deployed at a reasonable cost. Such researchprograms involving climate monitoring or large-scale atmospheric and oceanic modeling coulduse hundreds or thousands of moored buoys.Whether the costs of a global, open-ocean, multi-buoy system can be justified on climatological oroceanographic grounds alone will require muchconsideration. It would be difficult to justify thecost of a worldwide array of tethered buoysdesigned to supply data just for atmosphericmodeling. A buoy system for the initialization ofglobal oceanic circulation models would be ex-pensive because of the necessarily large numberof buoy stations required.

The economic case is more favorable for de-ployment of moored buoys that are more capablethan the existing data buoys on the ContinentalShelf and in coastal regions. This approachwould entail minimum maintenance costs andwould multiply the data use. Data from near-coastal buoys could be used to improve short-term coastal weather forecasts; to help predictstorm surges; and to provide wave forecasts forcoastal shipping operations, drilling operations,marine construction, and fisheries, The buoyscould monitor the boundary currents and coastalupwelling that are prevalent in these regions. Onthe other hand, the existence of such near-coastalbuoy stations is only of limited use for global at-mospheric or oceanic modeling.


Drifting Buoys

Drifting buoys are used extensively for measur-

ing subsurface currents. As surface floats, many

have been used during the First GARP GlobalExperiment (FGGE) in which a total of 368 suchbuoys were launched, 307 in the Southern Hemi-sphere. Sixty-four of these buoys belonged to theUnited States. Other U.S. programs which in-volved the use of drifting buoys are large oceancirculation, air-sea interaction, and ice dynamicstudies.

In some ways, drifting buoys are a refinementof the ancient drift bottles. The use of very highfrequency, of satellite communication, and ofunderwater acoustic signals have allowed thedrifters to transmit not only a series of signals by

which to locate them, but also information aboutother physical variables. Surface atmosphericpressure and near sea-surface temperature meas-urements were transmitted in FGGE; and tem-perature and depth measurements were trans-mitted in the Mid-Ocean Dynamics Experiment.

The instantaneous surface-pressure data fromthese buoys in remote southern ocean regionswere appreciated by the weather services ofAustralia, New Zealand, and South Africa fordirect operational purposes. The data about sur-face currents remain somewhat controversial,however, because of near-surface current shears,imperfect buoy-drogue (underwater parachute)action, and wind pressure on the part of the buoyabove the water. The modeling and improve-

Photo credit Peter Wiebe, Woods Ho/e Oceanographic Institution

This drifting buoy will follow water movement of eddies in the Gulf Stream. It will be tracked by satellite with position andtemperature reports available twice daily for up to 1 year. Such buoys are considered expendable but may be recovered and

repowered for another experiment


ment of the drogue system is a matter of activestudy by NDBO.18

Because drifting buoys can be launched fromaircraft they are especially valuable in remoteareas not normally traversed by ships. They havealso been installed successfully on ice to measuremeteorological data and ice movement.19

A series of about 30 drifting buoys has beenairdropped into the South Pacific to measurebarometric pressure and sea-surface temperatureas part of the Global Weather Experiment. Thedata from these Tires Meteorological DriftingBuoys are being transmitted via satel l i te toNOAA for distribution and archiving. Thesebuoys are about 10-ft long, with a maximumdiameter of 27 inches and a total weight of 294lb. The performance of the buoys is reportedlyexcellent and the data are unique for thisgeographical region. Although the powerpacks ofmost of the U.S. drifting buoys were designedonly for 1 year of operation, preliminary per-formance statistics indicate that only about 50percent of the meteorological drifting buoys ac-tually survived for 12 months.

An NDBO air-launched drifting buoy withbarometer, temperature sensor, battery pack,and drogue, costs at present about $7,500, notincluding the costs of deployment or satellitecommunication. This price could decrease some-what with mass production. Cost considerationsand limited usage have prevented large numbersof drifting buoys from becoming regular compo-nents of a routine, global ocean-monitoring sys-tem. Although they have been cost effective forlimited operational purposes for countries likeAustralia, which is affected by weather systemsdeveloping in infrequented ocean areas, they arenot so cost effective for the United States, which isless subject to such conditions. Drifting buoys willprobably continue to play a role in scientificresearch, particularly in process-oriented ex-periments. They can also be expected to remainuseful for tracing ice movement for research,

“J. H. Nath, “Drifting Buoy Tether- Drogue System,”’ Dr?~fers,U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Data Buoy Office, NDBOF.230-2, March 1979.

19E, C. Kerut and T. L. Livingston, “Air -Droppable BUOYS f o r

Remote Sensing, ” AntarctIcJournal of the b’ns’ted States, June 1976.

prediction and warning to ships, and drillingplatforms.

Moored Systems

Subsurface Moorings

Deployed by the Woods Hole OceanographicInstitution, Oregon State University, Scripps In-s t i t u t i on o f Oceanog raphy , NOAA Pac i f i cMarine Environmental Laboratory, University ofMiami, Navy, and others, subsurface mooringsare used by physical oceanographers for long-term (1 to 1 1/2 years) measurements of current,temperature, salinity, and optical transmission inthe study of mesoscale and intermediate scalefluid-flow in both deep and intermediate shelf-water environments. Acousticians use the moor-ings to place hydrophores, data recording cap-sules, and sound sources at specified depths forextended periods. The moorings are also used bygeologists to deploy sediment traps.

The moorings consist of a bottom anchor, oneor two acoustic releases —such that the mooringscan be freed from the anchor for recovery lines —and a wire rope connecting the releases to currentmeters, sediment traps, acoustic sources, andfloats that maintain a taut mooring and providethe lift that brings the array of instruments to theocean surface after the system is commanded torelease the mooring from its anchor. The moor-ings do not appear at ocean surface level for tworeasons:

●

●

to minimize the influence of surface-waveaction, currents, and windstress on themoorings’ motion;

to eliminate the risk of theft of the mooringassembly.

The Woods Hole Oceanographic Buoy Group,which has had considerable experience with thelaunch and retrieval of moorings, finds that largeoceanographic vessels of the Knorr-, Melville-, orAt/antis II-types are necessary when deployingmore than one deep mooring on a cruise. Thevessels used must have sufficient deck space tostore large quantities of equipment such as an-chors , f lotat ion spheres , l ines , and currentmeters. The vessel must have large capstans, A-frames, and cranes. The stern should be low to


Figure 6.— Intermediate Mooring

Photo credif Woods Ho/e Oceanography /nstItufIon

Mooring buoy being launched

the water, and the vessel must have adequatemaneuverability to maintain position and be ableto support acoustic communications systems.

Mooring Configurations

The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institutionand other institutions have developed reliablemooring techniques, and all use basic designprinciples similar to the following descriptions.20

Moorings used at the Woods Hole Oceano-graphic Institution incorporate three general de-sign configurations. The intermediate mooring,shown in figure 6, is a subsurface mooring withbuoyancy sections at several depths. The lowestbuoyancy section provides backup recovery in theevent of mooring failure. The depth of the top ofthe mooring can vary up to within 200m of thesurface or less.

The deep-sea surface mooring, shown in figure7, uses a variety of floats. The weight of its an-chor varies with the expected current profile. On

‘“James D. Baker, “Ocean Instruments and Experiment Design, ”a chapter for Rezveuls of the Ma rrne Enl~zronment, Department ofoceanography,” ~’nz~ferszty of Washtngtonp Carl Wunsch and BruceWarren (eds. ) (Cambridge, Mass.: MI-I- Press, August 1979).

H . - Sea surface

TYP. 500m” Sadie, light, 8

L

Radio float1/2 chain

~ Wire (typ. 20m)

t - - Instrument

Wire

Wire—————+

Wire

7

Intermediatebuoyancy

w i r e 2 o m ~(typ. 6 spheres)

f ) - Instrument

Wire

7

Backup recoverybuoyancy

SOURCE: Woods Hole Oceanographic Instltutlon

surface moorings, the backup-recovery section isa single cluster of glass spheres in hardhats onchain near the bottom, instead of in nets onnylon line as used in earlier practice. This sectioneliminates the need to test spheres because themooring will not be endangered if a sphere im-plodes on chain.

Bottom moorings, shown in figure 8, are usedto make near-bot tom measurements and fortransponder (a sensor/transmitter) placement.They are usually 200m or less in length, have no


Phofo credit Woods Hole Oceanographic /nst/tuf/on

Buoy group preparing mooring flotation

backup recovery section, and typically carry onlyone or two instruments.

Mooring failures occur during launch, duringrecovery, and on-station. Numerous on-stationfailures occurred when surface moorings, lines,and fittings failed from fish attack or from corro-sion or fatigue. Surface floats have been sweptunder and crushed in high currents. In manycases, surface moorings were less reliable than thesubsurface moorings because of fatigue caused bywaves.

Acoustic release became a key item as soon as itwas confirmed that the subsurface moorings weresignificantly more reliable. The timed releasesand weak links used earlier were adequate as longas mooring durations were short; but with longerand longer mooring durations being dictated byprogram needs to look at lower frequency varia-tions in currents and pressure fields, the timersbecame unworkable.

Many other buoy systems exist. Some are total-ly submerged and anchored to the bottom; someare released at the end of a given period; andsome are released on command. The sensors and

Figure 7.— Deep-Sea Surface Mooring

Light, radio, & float ‘

Chafe chain (typ. 10m)

W i r e ~

N y l o n - - +

Instrument

Chafe chain 5m Acoustic release

~Anchor tag line—nylon—typ. 20m

SOURCE: Woods Hole Oceanographic Instltutlon

data-recording devices used on the moorings de-pend on the scientific data requirements.21

Special custom-made buoys have occasionally been developed and deployed. A buoy used inresearch on ocean thermal energy conversions(OTEC) has been built by NDBO. This vehicletested candidate tubing for possible use in OTEC

z I u s Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmos,. .pheric Administration, Office of R & D, Office of Ocean Engineer-ing, Data Buoy Office, Final Report o} the NDBO .%z,ere Enxv’ron -

ment and Buoy workshop, July 1979.


Figure 8.— Bottom Mooring

Sea surface

Alternate buoyancypackage

t

current meters, temperature-gradient sensors,coring devices, shear-strength measuring devices,pore-pressure sensors, nephelometers, biologicaltools such as traps, and photographic and tele-vision cameras and recorders. The deployment ofthese instruments can be accomplished by anumber of techniques: lowering from ships, free-fall from ships, and placement by submersibles

Radio Light such as the Alvin, or by bottom-crawling vehi-Fiberglass cles. Deployment often incorporates buoyancyframe with elements, some sort of detachable weight for an-—

i

.Chain -B- 8 spheres

or syntacticfoam float

I Anchor tag–nylon (typ. 20m.)

I - c h a f e c h a i n 3 m

SOURCE Woods Hole Oceanographic Instltutlon

heat exchangers to measure heat transfer coeffi-cients, biofouling, and corrosion. Water qualityindicator systems, installed on OTEC and otherbuoys, have been used in bays and estuaries tomeasure chlorophyll, conductivity, dissolved ox-ygen, pH, water temperature, and water clarity.

Ocean-Floor Systems

There are numerous instruments and devicesthat oceanographers deploy in and on the oceanfloor. Examples of these instruments include:ocean-bottom seismometers, sediment traps,

choring, and acoustically activated release mech-anisms. This combination permits recovery bysurface ships on command.

An example of a new ocean floor instrumentsystem is the work undertaken by the HEBBLE(High Energy Benthic Boundary Layer Experi-ment) program in which an underwater platformis planned for long-term stationary operation.The purpose of HEBBLE would be to support anumber of instruments which would measuredeep, ocean-bottom processes such as currents,

Photo credit Woods Ho/e Oceanographic /nst/fut/on

Seafloor sampling device being lowered over the side ofR/V Oceanus for studies of transport and degradation

of aromatic hydrocarbons


sediment transport, and biologic patterns, andthen record the data for retrieval. The programwill study the dynamics of the benthic boundarylayer and its interaction with the seabed. In-formation gained from HEBBLE experimentswill be used in feasibility studies of nuclear wastedisposal in the subseabed, toxic waste disposal inthe ocean, and deep continental margin drill-i n g .2 2

This program in basic oceanography is sup-ported by Navy and NASA. The NASA Jet Pro-pulsion Lab is designing conceptual hardwaresystems for the project. Near-term efforts are ex-pected to produce a HEBBLE platform designfor deployment to depths of 4,000 to 6,000m.—

~~NatiOna] Aeronautics and Space Administration, Jet propulsionLaboratory, High Energy Bc=mthic Boundary Layer Experiment,Prelimtrmy Program Plan and Conceptual Design, JPL publicationNo. 80-2.1980.

The platform, or seabed lander, will consist of anarray of about 12 instruments with associatedelectronics and onboard microprocessors for dataacquisition and storage. A prototype is estimatedto cost approximately $2.5 million per lander.23

Other Vehicles

Various other vehicles have been consideredfor oceanographic research, ranging from fixed“Texas-Tower” types to large, moored barges.One in particular, has proved exceedingly usefulin certain studies: the manned, Floating Instru-ment Platform (Flip) operated by the Scripps In-stitution of Oceanography.

.—‘3A. J. Williams 111, et al., The HEBBLE II Report, Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution technical report No. 79-71, August 1979.

Photo credit: Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Flip, 355-ft floating instrument platform


Flip is a 355-ft long cylindrical platform whichis towed horizontally and then ballasted to a ver-tical, operating position. Flip was built in 1962,primari ly to provide a s table platform fromwhich to do underwater acoustic research. In1964, special tasks in physical oceanography werebegun using Flip. The first project was a study ofthe properties of long waves in the Pacific Ocean.Both basic oceanographic research and applica-tions to military oceanography have been impor-tant aspects of projects conducted by this plat-form.

In its early years, Flip drifted with the cur-rents, but in 1968-69 a three-point mooring sys-tem was installed. This installation permittedfixing Flip’s position to within 100m in a fairlydeep ocean in moderate currents.

In 1979 and 1980 Flip operated for about 50days. Two areas studied were:

. sound propagation using a vertical array o fhydrophores suspended below Flip; and

● internal waves, using narrow-beam sonarand temperature sensors.

Occasionally a self-propelled version of Flip issuggested. Also, consideration has been given toa proposed barge-like Flip with a large deck area.This construction would permit carrying of heavydeck loads and even perhaps a small submersible.Navy also operates a large, unmanned, Flip-typebuoy known as Spar. This platform has been ex-tensively used for acoustic research.

\

Photo credjt U S Navy

Spar

—


EQUIPMENT AND INSTRUMENTATION

Oceanographic research and survey platformscarry different types and combinations of equip-ment and instrumentation, depending on thepurpose and design of the overall mission, Equip-ment installed aboard most research and surveyships is briefly discussed below followed by ageneral review of oceanographic instruments thatare used in a variety of settings. Remote sensingfrom satellites is covered in a subsequent section

.operations. The equipment used depends on thetype of ship and i ts mission. For example,winches, cranes, A-frames, capstans, and opendecks near the water are usually necessary forservicing buoys, lowering dredging or coring gearto the sea floor, taking samples, towing nets orother sensors, and installing any number of spe-cial measurement systems. Special handling gearis necessary for very heavy instrument systems, for

on satellites.

Shipboard

submersibles, for large moorings, or for ROVs.

Equipment Some ships are built to accommodate specifichandling gear, while others are built with enough

equipment and services include flexibility to add or modify such gear as opera-winch-es, deck handling gear, laboratories, and tional needs change. Special winches and-eventhe specific hardware to accommodate scientific laboratories, such as those in a van, are often

Photo credit National Oceanic and Atrnospher/c Administration

Federal research programs require the use of ships and instrumentation technology. Here a seawater sampler is lowered tothe ocean floor from a research ship participating in the NOAA-sponsored Deep Ocean Mining Environmental Study

.


portable and designed for specific experiments.Since many ships are usually in service over 25years, they must be able to handle the significantchanges in technology for ocean-data collectionthat are likely to occur during the life of one ship.The present practice in the academic fleet is touse operating funds for equipment, with the re-sult that much equipment is not upgraded norstandardized adequately. Many research shipshave a lot of ad hoc equipment with the attend-ant difficulties in getting spare parts. It will beimportant in the future to maintain and upgradeshipboard equipment and to highlight problemsof inadequate or obsolete equipment within re-sponsible agencies.

Instrumentation

The heart of any ocean research project is itsinstrumentation. The need to develop instrumen-tation systems for general oceanographic meas-urements is driven by the need to observe certainphenomena.

Instruments take many forms and are used forall specific measurements. Measurements of gen-eral physical properties and processes have alwaysbeen important to oceanographic research. Suchmeasurements include ocean temperatures, salin-ity, density, and depths; dynamic properties pro-duced by waves, currents, and tides; meteorologi-cal conditions at the sea surface such as winds,humidity and pressure; chemical properties ofthe sea and its constituents, biological processesin the ocean; and descriptions of bottom and sub-bottom geology. Measurements of ocean trans-port processes, such as the north-south transportof heat, are especially crucial to climatology. Tounderstand heat transport in the ocean, bettertechniques are needed for measuring large flowsof both surface and deep-ocean water.

Biological sampling techniques are extremelyimportant for understanding behavior and pro-ductivi ty of ocean f ishstocks. Most exist ingsampling systems are rudimentary and slow incollecting data. Substantial improvements inbiological instrumentation would be useful to

major Federal efforts in fisheries and pollutionmonitoring. 24

The variety of oceanographic instruments andinstrument needs is huge. Most present-day pro-grams require an extensive array of sensors to col-lect data on physical, chemical, biological, andother properties simultaneously and over largeregions. Many measurements must also be madeover long periods of time so that the slow-movingdynamics of the ocean can be adequately re-corded.

In 1974, NOAA inventoried U.S. stock of sen-sors and samplers of ocean parameters. It foundthat there were about 21,000 ocean instrumentsof 34 generic types. *5 It also found that thetechnological focus of most oceanographic re-search, survey, and monitoring programs lay inthe instrumentation available. Survey and moni-toring programs generally use state-of-the-art in-strumentation available commercially. Researchprograms use a mix of commercial and often one-of-a-kind experimental units.

While it is often convenient to separate pro-grams into physical, biological, geophysical, andother disciplines, many instruments are commonto all disciplines. Furthermore, the large fieldprograms, such as climate, are interdisciplinaryand require a variety of instruments. Procure-ment, checkout, and calibration of off-the-shelfinstruments requires significant leadtimes to beincorporated into programs. Often experimentalsystems, having been proven of value, require ad-ditional development before they are sufficientlyreliable and applicable to the larger field ex-periments, surveys, and monitoring efforts.

Technology development of new instrumenta-tion is funded by Navy (ONR), NSF, NASA, andNOAA; however, there is no well-funded overallinstrumentation development program, that is———— —————

2~o~’R sporlwr~d Workshop on “Advanced Concepts in OceanMeasurements, Problems in Marine Biological Measurements, ” con-ducted by the University of South Carolina, Oct. 24-28, 1978.

Z$~J, s. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmos-

pheric Administration, Ocean Instrumentation, a report for the In-teragency Committee on Marine Science and Engineering, No-vember 1974,


separate from scientific programs. It is estimatedthat 10 percent of the funding of oceanographicresearch programs of Navy and NSF are directedtoward instrument procurement and develop-ment. The commercial oceanographic instru-ment market is so small that it is difficult to at-tract sector investment in the development ofproprietary, new instrument concepts. There-fore, wide dissemination of academically devel-oped technology is necessary to avoid nonproduc-tive expenditures. Interagency information ex-change on instrumentation development is badlyneeded as are realistic budget allocations.

Instruments and Related Hardware

The four general aspects of instrumentationsystems are the:

1. package and related equipment to supportthe instrument from a ship, on a mooring,or on its own;

2. sensors;3. power supply; and4. subsystem for data recording, storage, and

transmission.

The following discussions include descriptions oftypical and important oceanographic instru-ments. The instruments chosen are only illustra-tive examples of a subject that is too large forcomprehensive coverage in this report.26,27

Current Meters. – Current meters measure thevelocity and direction of ocean currents and areused widely throughout the ocean depths. Manyfixed meters have the same basic elements asthose in use for the past 20 years — a rotor to sensethe speed of the water and a vane to sense thedirection. They are usually fixed to moorings orbuoys and contain their own data recorders. Themodern versions have improved recorders toaverage the frequent direction changes and im-proved sensors utilizing acoustics, electropoten-tial, and magnetic techniques to measure flowand direction.

‘sBaker, op. cit.~JU s Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmos-. .

pheric Administration, Office of Ocean Engineering, Marine /i-nstrumentation: An Assessment of Technology Versus Needs, tech-nical report, May 1978.

Neutrally Buoyant Floats. –Neutrally buoy-ant floats are special versions of current meterswhich are launched into the ocean to drift withthe currents and are then tracked by a surfaceship. Measurement of currents by the use of floatsrequires sophisticated methods of tracking thefloats. The great strides made in acoustics duringWorld War 11 yielded such adaptable technol-ogy.

Early versions of floats were developed justafter the war and were known as “Swallow Floats”after their inventor, John Swallow. Tracing ofthem was difficult, however, until long-rangefloats were developed to use the SOFAR (SoundFixing and Ranging) channel. The SOFAR chan-nel is found in the many parts of the ocean and iscaused by the combination of pressure and tem-perature effects on the speed of sound. In theSOFAR channel a few watts of sound can beheard thousands of kilometers away.

Drifting surface buoys are an additional typeof current indicating instrument that have beenfound to be of considerable importance. (Thepredecessor to drifting buoys was the driftingcorked bottle. ) Drifting surface floats with sub-surface drogues (parachutes) are controlled inpostion by the subsurface currents that pull at thedrogue. Position data, meteorological data, and


ocean surface temperature are transmitted fromthese drifters via satellites.

An interesting extension of the idea of the neu-trally buoyant float is the self-propelled andguided float. One such instrument, built at theUniversity of Washington, is called SPUR V (self-propelled underwater research vehicle). SPUR Vcan maneuver underwater with acoustic signalsto produce horizontal and vertical profiles oftemperature, salinity, and other parameters. Infact, it is really an ROV, that illustrates thedifficulty in putting oceanographic technology inneat categories.

Temperature Profilers. – The free-fall bathy-thermograph (BT) has advanced dramatically indesign. The old BT with its pressure-drivenbellows and temperature gauge that recordedtemperature as a function of depth has beenreplaced by the electronic XBT. A radio link isnow included so that the unit can be droppedfrom a data-recording aircraft. These expend-able units provide data from the upper layers ofthe ocean. The XBT uses a thermistor to sensethe temperature and depends on a known fall-rate to determine the depth.

XBTs are an invaluable tool for monitoringthe upper layer thermal structure of the ocean.Merchan t sh ip s equ ipped w i th XBTs haveyielded extensive sets of data for the study of thevariability of the thermal structure of the upperocean in both the North Pacific and the NorthAtlantic. By 1978, the Sippican Corp., suppliersof the XBT, produced more than 2 mil l ion

Photo credit M Guberek, Scripps Ins!/tution of Oceanography

Merchant marine cadet receiving instruction in theoperation of an automated instrument to measure seawater

temperature and depth. Climate research will requireconsistent, accurate measurements over long time

periods such as can be provided by a network of“ships-of-opportunity” with trained officers aboard

probes. The scientific community alone uses ap-proximately” 65,000 XBTs annually. Navy usesmany more. To obtain deeper and more accuratemeasurements than are available with the XBT,ship-lowered systems, such as the salinity-tem-perature depth instrument or the conductivity-temperature-depth instrument are used.

Velocity Profiles. – The measurement of cur-rent as a function of depth is critical to theunderstanding of ocean circulation. The technol-ogy has advanced but not sufficiently to providethe quantitative and wide-area data needed inmany oceanographic studies. Techniques usedinclude three classes: the sinking float, the free-fall device, and the attached profiler. The sink-ing float, is tracked acoustically by ocean-flowtransmissions as it sinks, and its path is differen-tiated to yield velocity as a function of depth.The free-fall device includes a current sensor.The attached profiler instrument that has a cur-rent meter that goes up and down a line attachedto a ship, mooring, or drifting buoy. Since thesethree types provide data only at a single point


and for a restricted time, they cannot provide thedata required for many large-scale experimentsand survey programs. Newer techniques usingacoustic doppler and correlation (acoustic to-mography) are being investigated to overcomethese limitations.

Almost every oceanographic discipline hasneeds for improved instrumentation. In fisheries,limitations exist in the ability to identify speciesby acoustics, to conduct population surveys, andto net mid-water fish species. Technology fordeepwater sampling at moderate ship speeds forchemical oceanography or nutrient-analysis pur-poses is not available. In seismic work, significantadvances have been made by the petroleum in-dustry; however, advanced instrumentation hasnot been available to academic and Governmentlaboratories.

Associated Technologies. –There are manytechnologies associated with data acquisition thathave considerable impact on sensor systems butare not classified as instrumentation, per se.These approaches include navigation and in-strument position technology, data recordingand transmission, instrument power supplies,and electronic technologies.

Data Recording and Data Transmission. –SeaData Corp. has produced over 1,000 recorderssince 1972. The present Sea Data (1978) modeluses less than 4 watthours of battery power torecord 11 million bits of data. The tape transportcan write data as fast as 1,200 bits per second oras slow as one record per half hour. At this rate,with a maximum 396-bit data record, a cassettewould take more than a year to fill. This datacapacity is roughly equivalent to 500 ft of 4-inch-strip chart paper. Other commercial cassettetape recorders are also available for oceano-graphic use.

In many applications it is necessary to obtainoceanographic data in real time. Data transmis-sion by satellite relay has replaced many radiofrequency transmissions and has made communi-cations possible from many small remote buoys.

Navigation, Position Data, and Communica-tions. — Most oceanographic studies and surveysrequire position data. Advances in shore-basednavigation, such as Loran and Omega, are com-

Photo credit Scripps /nst/tut/on o! Oceanography

In the laboratory aboard a research vessel, a studentstudies recorded measurements from a temperature probe

of heat flow through the ocean floor

plemented by satellite navigation systems. Withinthe next 5 years, further improvement of positiondata will be provided by the Global PositioningSystem (GPS).

Batteries. – Power consumption of data re-corders is now lower because of improvements inbattery capacity over the past few years. The newlithium-cell batteries provide a number of char-acter is t ics important for oceanographic use.They have the highest cell voltage, the longestshelf life, the greatest energy density, the bestlow-temperature performance, and a flatter volt-age-discharge curve than any other battery ex-cept mercury cells. The last characteristic is espe-cially important for use in logic circuits where thesystem is usually set to run at a given regulatedvoltage.

These batteries and the new high-capacity taperecorder allow measurements of various ocean-ographic parameters in excess of a year and do acertain amount of data processing in situ. Onemajor data collection problem has been solved bythe introduction of reliable tape recording sys-tems now on the market.

Electronics Technology. – One of the most im-portant steps in instrument design was the in-troduction of the new lower-power, integrated-circuit, solid-state electronics, known generally asCOSMOS (complementary-symmetry metal ox-


Photo credit’ Unwersfty of Ca///ora,a, San D/ego

Shipboard computer group at Scripps Institution of Oceanography has five computers —three 1800’s and two satellitenavigation systems. Operating 24 hours a day, both at-sea aboard research vessels and on land at the La Jolla campus,

they collect and process data from oceanographic instrumentation

ide semiconductor). Solid state devices permit anumber of data processing operations in situ thatnever could have been considered before. For ex-ample, the vector-averaging current meter com-putes north and east components of the velocity,and records the speed, compass and vane follow-er directions, time, temperature, and the com-ponents over a variable sampling time which canbe set to fit the experiment. The total recordingtime can be longer than 600 days. The use of theCOSMOS integrated circuit technology is crucialto this flexibility.

A future outgrowth of the above technologymay be oceanographic instruments using inte-grated electronic circuit components on silicon

“chips” if enough measurements for many sta-tions are identified. The original chip will be ex-pensive to design, but economical to replicate.For example, once a satisfactory digital outputinstrument has been developed, the next stepwould be to do the same thing that manufac-turers of commercial electronic games do —namely, to make up a large-scale integrated(LSI) circuit chip. To make a chip may cost$250,000; replicas may cost about $5 each.

The major factor preventing the developmentof instrumentat ion chips is economics. Theoceanographic market is insufficient to justifydeveloping a chip in the hope of making a profit.Public funding, however, may be justified. The


investment could return benefits, such as betterand more complete data; fewer lost costs becauseof instrument malfunctions; and ease of replace-ment since ships can carry spare chips. The otheradvantages of LSI circuit chips would be durabil-ity, continuity of instrument design, less tem-perature sensitivity, insensitivity to accelerations,and much smaller circuits, with the attendantadvantages in small size.

Many “control”- type chips are becoming avail-able for other nonoceanographic use, such asthat in appliances, automobiles, and special in-strument control. Many of these special and gen-eral -purpose chips may be useful to ocean-ographic instrumentmakers.

Oceanographic equipment and instrumenta-tion requirements are very dynamic due to thechanging character of programs and availabletechnologies. Each discipline and each programmay have unique requirements; most have manytechnology requirements in common. The shar-ing of development costs to advance both tech-nology and programs may offer new instrumenta-tion and program alternatives. The significantproblem in each program is that of gaining thetechnology and the required equipment and in-strumentation on a time- and cost-effective basis.


SATELLITES

The many satellites that have carried sensorsand yielded data useful to ocean, coastal, andpolar science, and to oceanic environmentalmonitoring are listed in table 24. The concerteddevelopment of oceanic remote sensors for thesesatel l i tes received a majo r impe tu s f rom ameeting of oceanic data users at Williams Col-lege, Williamstown, Mass., in 1969. At thatmeeting, goals and objectives for satellite obser-vation, measurement, and i n t e rp re t a t i on o focean phenomena were formulated (table 25).These measurement needs reflected the fact thatthe everchanging nature of the ocean requirescontinuous viewing at all times in the day, despitethe cloud cover which can be prevalent in manyimportant regions. Fu r the rmore , t he needsserved as an important benchmark from which tojudge the oceanic programs that followed thismeeting and they had a direct effect on the for-mulation of measurement objectives for the pro-posed NOSS. Recent representative sensor tech-

The measurement of the ocean by satellitetechnology began with both the experimentalsatellites (such as the Nimbus series) that testednew satel l i te instrumentat ion and the globalweather satellites (Tires and Improved Tires)that were able to provide day and night globalocean coverage. 28

Although several early satellite missions pro-vided oceanic data, these data were usually out-side of the mainstream purpose of the missions.Missions with a strictly oceanic objective beganwith a Skylab experimental mission, were fol-lowed by the GEOS-3 altimetric experiment, andculminated in 1978 by the Seasat experiment .Other missions dedicated to diverse or differentinterests have also provided valuable oceanicd a t a .2 9

‘8John R. Apel, “Ocean Science From Space, ” EOS,Journa/ ojtheAmerican Geophysical Unzon, September 1976.

‘9A. Schnapf, Euolutzon of t h e O p e r a t i o n a l S a t e l l i t e Servz’ce,]958-1984 (Princeton, N.J.: RCA Corp., 1979).

Table 24.—U.S. Satellites of Utility in Ocean, Coastal, and Polar Monitoring

LaunchSatellite date Orbit Character Sensors Oceanic Parameters

Polar Experimental IR and MW radiometers and Temperature, ice cover,radiation budget, wind, color

Nimbus 4..1970bolometer; color scanner

Nimbus 5..1973Nimbus 6..1975Nimbus-G. .1978

ITOS 1-4...1966-75ESSA 1-9. . .NOAA 1-4. .

ATS 1-3....1966-67

Polar

Synchronous

Synchronous

Variable

Polar

Operational Visible vidicon; IR scanner Imagery, temperature

Prototype Visible, IR scanners;data channel

Imagery, temperature,data relay

SMS/GOES1-5. . . . . . . .1974-78 Operational

Experimental

Prototype

Visible, IR scanners;data channel

Laser reflectors; altimeter

Imagery, temperaturedata relay

GEOS 1-3..1965-75Geoid, ocean geoid

Imagery, temperatureERTS 1 .. ..1972 Visible, near-l R scanner;thermal IR scanner

Landsat 2..1974Landsat 3..1978

Skylab. .. ..1973 Experimental Cameras; visible, IR scanner;spectro radiometer;MW radiometers; altimeter;scatterometer

Visible, IR scanners

Imagery, temperature waveheight, wind speed geoid

—

Tires-N .. ..1978 Polar Operational Imagery, temperature

SOURCE: National Aeronautics and Space Administration


Table 25.—Measurement Needs for Oceanographic Satellites

Measurement Range

Geoid 5cm-200mTopography Currents, IOcm-10m

surges, etc. 5-500cm/sI Open ocean

Surface winds I Amplitude Closed sea I 3-50m/sI I 4

I CoastalDirect ion 0-3600

1

Height 0.5-20m

Gravity waves I Length 6-1 1,000mDirect ion 0-360°Open sea

Surface Closed sea – 2-35‘C

temperature I Coastal I

Precisionaccuracy Resolution Spacial grid

+/- 10 cm 10km —+/-1ocm 10-1000m 10km+/- 5cm/s

10-50km 50-100km+/- 1 TO 2m/s 5-25km 25km

OR* 10% l-5km 5km* 10.20” 0 — —

+/- 0.5m 20kmOR g+/- 10-25%

3 10.250/o 3-50m 50km* 1 ().3()0

25-100km IOOkm

0.1-2 “relative 5-25km 25km

0.5-2° absolute I 0.1-5km I 5km

Extent and age 6 me.— yrs. l-5km l-5km l-5kmSea ice Leads 50cm 25m 25m 25m

Icebergs IOcm l-50m l-50m 25m

SOURCE: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

nologies on aircraft and satellites that provideoceanic and polar measurements are shown intable 26.30

Of the several more recent satellites, the mostuseful for oceanography are probably N O A A - 3and NOAA -4, ER TS-1, Landsat-2, GEOS-3, theSMS/GOES series, Tires-N, Seasat, and Nim-bus-7. The last three satellites were launched in1978 and their impact is currently being assessed.Tiros-N is the first of the new generation of oper-ational meteorological and environmental polar-orbiting satellites. Nimbus-7 was designed toserve experimental ends for both pollution moni-toring and oceanography. Seasat-A was the firstsatellite designed for oceanographic research butonly lasted 3 months.

The Department of Defense (DOD) satellitesystems, such as the Defense MeteorologicalSatellite System are also of value in makingoceanic measu remen t s bu t a r e no t w ide lyavailable outside of military programs.31

Sosamue] w. Mccand]ess, ~ n ~ na/ysi5 of the NQtior2Q/ Oceanic

Satellite System, NOSS, prepared for OTA, ‘Apr. 12, 1980.3 I ~ artment of the Nav y , Na~al oceanographic and Metewo-P

logica[ Sup#xJrt S y s t e m Erlzvronmerttal Satellite Plan, D i r e c t o r ,Naval Oceanography and Meteorology, July 1978.

Temporal grid

Weekly to monthlyTwice a day to

weekly

2-8/d

Hourly—

2-8/d

2-4/d

Daily to weekly

with spectrum of

times of day and

times of year

weekly

2-4/d—

Photo credit Nat/onal Ocearrlc and Atmospheric Administration

NOAA’s satellite-tracking ground stations receive data fromsatellites on global ocean static and weather conditions

To fill the need for a dedicated oceanographicsatellite, the operational satellite community hasproposed development of an NOSS as a “limitedoperational demonstration” mission. The projectwould be a joint effort of NASA, NOAA, and


Shortform

SR . . . . .VHRR . .V I S S R

AVHRR .

M S S .

TM . . . . .

Czcs

ESMR

SMMR . .

ALT . . . .SASS. .SAR . . . .

Table 26.—Satellite Sensor Records of Interest in Ocean, Coastal, and Polar Monitoring-— — —

SpatialSensor name Wavelength or frequency Spacecraft resolution

Scanning radiometerVery high resolution radiometerVisible and infrared spin

scan radiometerAdvanced very high resolution

radiometerMultispectral scanner

Thematic mapper

Coastal zone color scanner

Electronically scanned microwaveradiometer

Scanning multichannel microwaveradiometer

Short pulse altimeterRadar wind scatterometerSynthetic aperture radar

Visible and thermal IR NOAA-1 through 4Visible and thermal IR NOAA-1 through 4Visible and thermal IR GOES

Visible and thermal IR Tires-N

Four channels, visible and ERTS/Landsat-l through 3reflected IR; thermal I R

Four channels, visible and Landsat-Dreflected IR; thermal I R

Six channels, visible, reflected Nimbus-7and thermal IR

19 GHz

Five channels: 6.6, 10, 18,21,35 GHz

13.9 GHz, 14.6 GHz13.4 GHz, 14.6 GHz1.3 GHz

MSU . . . Microwave sounding unit 4 or 7 channels50 to 58 GHz

;OURCE Nattonal Aeronautics and Space Admlnistratton -

— —

Navy. An analysis of the NOSS program is inanother section of this report.

Operational Weather Satellites

The National Environmental Satellite Service(NESS) of NOAA, is responsible for the opera-tion of polar-orbiting and geostationary satellitesthat collect weather and other environmentaldata. The principal user of this satellite data isNOAA’s National Weather Service, but the dataare also available to other Government agenciesand to the public.

Polar-Orbiting Satellites

Polar-orbiting satellites are generally in a loworbit (approximately 500 to 900 miles — 800 to1,500 km – altitude) and they circle the globefrom pole to pole 12 to 14 times each day, collect-ing data and imagery in a swath of up to 1,500-miles (2,500-km) wide. The data are either trans-mitted to ground receiving stations in real time or

Nimbus-5

Nimbus-7, Seasat

Skylab, GEOS-3, SeasatSkylab, SeasatSeasat

Tires or DMSS BLK V-D-2,respective y

———. —— —-————

7km1 kml-7km

1 km

75m, 250m (IR)

30m, IOOm (IR)

825m

15km

15-140km

2kmIOOkm25m range-7mazimuth

100km

stored for playback when the satellite is withinrange of a ground receiving station .32 33

A third generation of polar-orbiting satel-lites, the Tires-N series, is now operational. Theseries consists of two satellites in orbit: Tiros-Nand NOAA -6. Tiros-N, the NASA prototypeand the first of this series, was launched October13, 1978. NOAA-6, formerly NOAA-A, w a slaunched in April 1979, as the first operationalsatellite of this series. A third satellite, NOAA -7,is scheduled for orbit in 1981.

The satellites carry four primary instruments:a Tires operational vertical sounder (TOVS), anadvanced very high-resolut ion radiometer , aspace environment monitor, and a data collec-

~ZU, s. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmos-pheric Administration, “Summary of Actions Leading to Establish-ment of the National Operational Meteorological System (NOMSS)in Department of Commerce, ” background paper, received from G.Ludwig, Director of Satellite Operations, NESS, Oct. 24, 1973,

331bid.


tion and platform location system called ARGOS(fig. 9).

France is furnishing the ARGOS system andwill also do the platform location analysis in theoperational system. The United Kingdom is pro-viding the stratospheric sounding unit (a compo-nent instrument of TOVS). Major improvementsin Tires will be higher accuracy and resolutionof atmospheric temperature and water vapor

soundings, increased radiometric data providingmore accurate seasurface temperature mappingand plotting of snow and ice cover and the addi-t ional abil i ty to monitor solar spectral dis-turbances. 34

—34u. s. Department Of Commerce, National Oceanic and AtrnOS-

pheric Administration, Oceanit and Related Atmospheric Phenom-ena as Viewed From Enw”ronmenta! Satellites, Washington, D. C.,April 1979.

Figure 9.—Polar-Orbiting Satellite Subsystem

SOURCE. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


Because of the extremely large volume of digi-tal data delivered by these satellites, it wasnecessary to install a new ground system whichwas completed in June 1978. The system is func-tionally divided into two subsystems called theData Acquisition and Control Subsystem (DACS)and the Data Processing and Service Subsystem(DPSS). The DACS equipment is located at Wal-lops Island, Va., Gilmore Creek, Alaska, SanFrancisco, Calif., Suitland, Md., and Lannion,France. Satellite data acquired at the Wallopsand Gilmore Creek sites are relayed to the NESSSuitland, Md., facility via a domestic commercialcommunications satellite. The DPSS, located inSuitland, preprocesses and conditions the datafor archiving and storage and directs it to theNOAA Central Computer Facility. Products are

then developed and distributed to the users. Thedata are archived in a mass-storage system andretained by NOAA’s Environmental Data and In-formation Service (NOAA/EDIS).

Geostationary Satellites

Geostationary satellites are parked in orbitabout 22,000 miles (36,000 km) above the sur-face. At this altitude, they remain above thesame point on Earth, thus being geosynchronousor geostationary. The satellites’ sensors collect acomplete Earth-disk image of about 25 percent ofthe globe once every 30 minutes (fig. 10).

NOAA operates the Geostationary Operation-al Environmental Satellite (GOES) system, con-s i s t i ng o f p r edominan t l y l and and mar ine

Figure 10.–Geostationary Satellite System (GOES)

WEFAXdata

WEFAX Raw Stretched Stretcheddata data data data

Spaceground — — — - — - I —

I

WEFAXstations I

II

Everywhere

— — - - - T – – – - –

IIR data

I +COA

WEFAXdata

IWallops Island Suitland, Md.

— .

NOAA data4

+NMC charts(future)

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admlnlstratlon


weather observation units with remote data-transmission links. This system includes threeoperating sa t e l l i t e s (SMS-2 , GOES-2 , andGOES-3), two partially operating satellites instandby duty (SMS-1 and GOES-I), a recentlylaunched satellite (GOES-4) that is still beingchecked out, the data acquisition system, and acentralized data distribution system. The firstsatellite in this system, NASA’s SynchronousMeteorological Satellite (SMS-1), a prototype forGOES, was launched May 17, 1974.

There are now approximately six functionalgeostationary satellites in space. Positioned overthe Equator, SMS-2 operates at longitude 750W., GOES-3 operates at longitude 1350 W. andGOES-2 operates at longitude 1050 W. to re-transmit weather map data to Government andprivate users.

The European Space Agency operates its owngeostationary satellite, Meteosat, at 00 longi-tude, and Japan’s National Space DevelopmentAgency operates a satellite at 1400 longitude.

In addition, the standby satellites, SMS-1 andGOES-I, are located at longitude 300 W. andlongitude 1290 W. respectively. Other potentialsatellites include GOES-4, launched in Septem-ber 1980 and positioned at longitude 980 W. fortrial, and GOES-5, scheduled for orbit in 1981.

The primary instrument carried by SMS andGOES satellites is the visible and infrared spin-scan radiometer (VISSR). VISSR provides a full-disk view of the Earth every 30 minutes. More fre-quent images can be obtained at the sacrifice ofspatial coverage. The visible channel provideshigh resolution (about 1 km) daytime images; theinfrared channel provides lower resolution (about8 km) day and night images.

SMS/GOES satellites also carry a space en-vironment monitor for observing solar radiationand the Earth’s magnetic field and a data-collec-tion system for collecting and relaying environ-mental data from remote observing platforms onthe Earth’s surface. Such sensing devices includeriver and rain gages, seismometers, tide gages,and instruments on buoys, ships, aircraft, andautomatic weather stations. Each operationalGOES spacecraft can accommodate data frommore than 10,000 platforms every 6 hours. Data

may also be transmitted under emergency condi-tions in which the platform transmitter is trig-gered whenever an observed parameter exceeds apredetermined threshold value. About 500 plat-forms have now been certified in the GOES DataCollection System to provide environmental datato users in the United States and Canada.

VISSR images are processed through the NESSCentral Data Distribution Facility, either as afull-disk image or a section thereof, and routed toSatellite Field Services Stations (SFSS) for analysisand further routing to National Weather Serviceforecast offices and other users (fig. 10). EachSFSS provides regional analysis, interpretation,and distribution of the VISSR images to meet awide variety of environmental needs. One of theseimportant services is the near-continuous viewingof the development and movement of severeweather systems, such as hurricanes and thunder-storms. 35

An extension of the GOES image-distributionservice is the “GOES-TAP” system. Instituted byNESS in 1975, “GOES-TAP” now allows Federal,State, and local agencies, television stations,universities, and industry to receive a limited in-ventory of GOES satellite images directly fromthe nearest field service station. In addition,GOES satellites broadcast weather data to remotelocations using the Weather Facsimile System.

As a result of the international cooperationand participation within the World Meteorologi-cal Organization, a future global geostationaryobservation system is being developed. Japan, theEuropean Space Research Organization (ESRO),and the U.S.S.R. are each planning to launchtheir own geostationary environmental satelliteswithin this decade. All except the U.S.S.R.spacecraft will be launched by the United Statesaboard a Delta launch vehicle from Cape Ken-nedy, Fla. Figure 11 shows the approximatespacecraft locations for the proposed global sys-tem. Each spacecraft will be spaced about 700apart around the world —one over the westernPacific (Japan), one over the eastern Atlantic( E S R O ) , a n d o n e o v e r t h e I n d i a n O c e a n

. —J~u .S [)epartmen[ of c~rnrnet-ce, National Oceanic and Atmos-. .

pheric Administration, (;eostat!onary ~@vat!ona! En~vronmenta[Satelltte/L)ata Co[[ectfon System, NOAA technical report NESS 78,July 1979.


Figure 11 .—Proposed Global GeostationarySatellite System

Geostatlonary equatorial orbit(alt,–35,600 km)

Western Pacific Indian Ocean

\ , >. ,<, .- - -- -- - - . “<.

Eastern Pacific .’! European‘,’ >

Atlantic

SOURCE: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratlon

compared with Seasat -A and N i m b u s - 7overflight observations. Localized experimentswould form elements of surface-truth data forcomparison with satellite data. For example,surface-wind data could be obtained from air-craft and surface platforms for calibration ofSeasat/Nimbus data to be used in support of theglobal weather experiment.36

The Nimbus series was originally conceived asmeteorological satellites to provide atmosphericdata for improved weather forecasting; but as in-creasingly sophisticated sensors became avail-able, the series grew into a major program study-ing earth sciences. The U.S. Navy has used Nim-bus data for planning operations in the Arcticand Antarctic. Satellite images showing the loca-tion and movement of ice masses enables navalships to operate in these areas for an additionalseveral months.

Nimbus-7

The disciplinary areas of Nimbus-7, the mostrecent of the series (and the only one now oper-——..

S6U, s. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmosp-heric Administration, National Environmental Satellite Service,“Program Development Plan for Seasa(A Research and Applica-tions, ” March 1977.

ating), are pollution, oceanography, weather,and climate. Like its six predecessors, it is a Sun-synchronous, polar-orbiting spacecraft carryingatmospheric sounders, scanning mappers, andEarth radiation-balance sensors. Oceanographicparameters include sea-surface temperature, sea-ice coverage, waveheight, surface winds, and rainrate. In addition, an imaging instrument calledthe coastal zone color scanner (CZCS) providessix channels of visible and infrared color picturetransmissions. The CZCS is designed to detectand interpret ocean color, suspended sedimentand chlorophyll concentrations, and ocean pol-lutants. Nimbus-7 carries a microwave identicalto SMMR (scanning multichannel microwaveradiometer); however, it provides no real-timedata. Nimbus-7 will go out of service in 1981.

Seasat-A

Seasat-A was the first dedicated oceanographicsatellite. Launched in June 1978 by NASA, itpioneered new microwave and remote sensing foroceanography. It was originally planned to col-lect data for about one year but the spacecraftfailed 3 months after launch. The experimentcost about $100 million. About once every 36hours, Seasat completely scanned the globe, pro-viding high-resolution geophysical data in con-tinuous real time for ocean-surface winds andtemperature, waveheight, ice conditions, oceantopography, and coastal and open-ocean storms.

The general characteristics and a summary ofthe instrumentation of Seasat are defined in table27. The Seasat-A sensor complement (fig. 12)was comprised of three active radars: a radaral t imeter (ALT), a synthetic aperture radar(SAR), a radar scatterometer system (SCATT),and a passive SMMR. The geophysical oceano-graphic measurement capability of Seasat-A a sshown in table 27 can be compared to user re-quirements in table 25.

The SeaSat sensors, which were turned on foroperation on the 10th day, operated at maximumcapacity until the end of the mission. The micro-wave scatterometer (SASS) and SMMR operatedcontinuously throughout the mission. ALT andthe visual and infrared radiometer (VIRR) ex-perienced specific problems, but still produced


Table 27.—Geophysical Oceanographic Measurement Design Capabilities for Seasat-A

PrecisionMeasurement Sensor Range /accuracy Resolution, km

Geoid 5cm-200m

Topography Currents, surges, etc. Altimeter IOcm-10m * 20cm 1.6-12

Surface winds Amplitude Microwave radiometer 7-50m/s +/- 2m/s OR +/- 10%’ 50m s /

Scatterometer3-25 +/- 2m/s OR 10%

Direction O-360o * 200 50

Height Altimeter 0.5-25m +/- ().5 TO 1.0m 1.6-12OR* I0%

Gravity waves Length Imaging 50-100m +/- 10%Direction radar 0-360” * 150/0

50m

Relative V & IR -2-35” C 1 .5°Surface Absolute radiometer Clear weather 2° - 5

temperature Relative Microwave -2-35° C 1°Absolute radiometer All weather 1 .5° 100

V & IR radiometer - 5km - 5Extent Microwave radiometer 10-1 5km 10-15

Sea ice +/- 25m 25mLeads Imaging radar 50m +/- 25m 25m

Icebergs 25m +/- 25m 25m

Shores, clouds V & IR radiometerOcean islands - 5km - 5features Shoals, currents Imaging radar +/- 25m 25m

Atmospheric Water vapor Microwave +/- 25m 50correct ions & liquid radiometer

SOURCE. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

excellent data sets. VIRR was not operational atthe time the data transmissions stopped.

Seasat completed 1,503 revolutions of theEarth during its period of operation. SAR com-pleted about 480 passes of 2- to 20-minutes dura-tion each over receiving stations accumulatingover 14,000, 100m X 100m image frames.

Two major surface experiments were con-ducted during the mission. The first of these wasthe multinational Joint Air-Sea Interaction Ex-periment (JASIN), which was conducted in theeastern Atlantic near Scotland. Planned and con-ducted by a group of European and Americanscientists, JASIN was an intensive study of themarine boundary layer and air-sea energy trans-fer. Some 200 Seasat passes were made over theJASIN area during the experiment period. ANASA C-130 aircraft, equipped with a Seasatunderflight scatterometer, also part icipated,along with several European and Americanresearch aircraft, 37 38

STU s ~epartment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmos-. .pheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite Service,“Satellite Activities of NOAA 1977” April 1978.

3aJet propulsion La boratov, California Institute of TechnoloW.Seasat Log, vol. Z,Jan. 25, 1979.

Another Seasat ground-truth experiment wasconducted in September 1978 in the Gulf of Alas-ka. Termed the Gulf of Alaska Seasat Experi-ment (GOASEX), this activity was planned andconducted by NOAA and included NOAA’s Pa-cific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NESS,the Atlantic Oceanographic and MeteorologicalLaboratory, the Wave Propagation Laboratory,and NDBO. The principal research facility de-ployed during GOASEX was NOAA’s researchvessel, Oceanographer. The Canadian weatherships, Quadra and Vancouver, alternating atOcean Weather Station PAPA, also obtainedspecial data on satel l i te overpassage t imes.Selected research vessels of USGS and of theUniversity of Alaska also made special weatherobservations during satellite overpass of theirposi t ions. Part icipat ing aircraft included anAmes Research Center’s CV-990, equipped withan airborne version of the SMMR; the JohnsonSpace Center’s NC-130B with the Seasat under-flight scatterometer; the Naval Research Labora-tory’s RP-3A, equipped with meteorological andmicrowave radiometer instrumentation, and theCanadian CV-580A aircraft, carrying the En-vironmental Research Institute of Michigan’s

.


Figure 12.—The Seasat-A Spacecraft

SoIar-power

Agena bus

synthetic aperture radar system. This experimentwas also supported by nine NOAA data buoysmoored in the Gulf of Alaska. A comprehensivedata set was collected, corresponding to some 60satellite overpassages, including more than adozen SAR passes. A coordinated study of thisdata set is underway as a key element in the earlyevaluation activity. 39

NASA states that Seasat-A was a success in its

“proof-of-concept” mission despite its short lifeand mechanical failure of the spacecraft. Recentevaluations by NASA conclude that certain Sea-sat instruments have been proven to the extentthat they can be used on a next phase or pro-totype mission. ALT performed better than ex-pected (+/- 7 cm), the SCATT measured windswithin +/- 2 m per second; the CZCS made meas-urements of chlorophyll within a factor of 2; andthe SMRRs provided sea-surface temperaturedata to 1.50 C in selected cases. Although only alimited number of the planned experiments wereactually carried out, interagency recommenda-tions have proceeded for the development ofNOSS’s limited operational demonstration.

39JeL prol)ul~ion Laboratory , C a l i f o r n i a I n s t i t u t e o f ‘1’echnology,

Stwsat Gulf of A l a s k a WtJrkshf~p Rt>fmr! (Prt>[zmtnary), P a s a d e n a ,

Calif., February 1979 .


Aircraft areoceanographicsatellites, they

AIRCRAFT

used only to a limited extent forresearch and survey work. Likepermit a synoptic overview of

ocean-surface conditions that cannot be obtainedfrom shipboard surveys. 40 Typically, long-rangeaircraft such as those described in table 28 byNASA are used for survey work. When equippedwith appropriate remote or airdropped, radio-linked oceanographic and acoustic sensors, theyprovide an efficient means of acquiring data overbroad ocean areas on a near real-time basis. TheFederal agencies which use aircraft and helicop-ters most for oceanographic research and surveyare Coast Guard, NASA, NOAA, and Navy.

One major disadvantage of aircraft is that theyare grounded in adverse weather conditions.Although some flights are made for surveillanceand medical evacuations in the face of hur-ricanes, most flights are not conducted duringconditions of low visibility, heavy ice accretion,or low ceiling.

Federal Agency Operatiom

The U.S. Coast Guard employs the equivalentof three aircraft specifically for oceanographic. —

4yJ, s, ~el)artmcnt of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmos.pheric- Administration, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Services,[ ‘ser and .%lt’o.~tlr(~rrl(~rit Rcqutrenl(’nts }or an Intt~gratcd Ocean Ort -cntcd Ot~.st’rzvng .~ystenl, July 25, 1979.

Table 28.—Aircraft and Sensors

Aircraft and sensor characteristics

SpatialAircraft Altitude, km Spectral resolution Swath(typical) (typical) Sensor range (at Nadir) m width, km

i - 2 197 OCS VIS, NIR 75 25Cameras VIS, NIR 10 25

C-130 3 0 M2S VIS, NIR 8 8 5TIR 8 8.5

cameras VIS, NIR 0.5 4.5c - 5 4 14 MWR MW 500 500m

(+-1)(Line)

Helicopter. 003 Alope Vls 50 0. 3m(Line)

VIS Vlslble O 307 pm (typical)NIR Near IR O 7 11 pm (typlcdl)TIR Thermal IR 105 125 pm (Iyp[cal}

MW L and S bands

SOURCE Nallonal Oceamc and Almosphenc Admlrvstrahon

survey, ice patrol, and oilspill response. Theseaircraft are not always the same. The rest of theextensive Coast Guard flight time is devoted tooperations, and the overlap with research issometimes difficult to define.

Some Coast Guard aircraft fly about 3 days permonth with a portable sensor — a passive infraredinstrument to measure sea-surface temperature–between Cape Hatteras and Cape Cod. Thedata collected are used by 600 to 700 fishermento locate certain species of fish that tend to schoolin waters having a fairly narrow temperaturerange. The aircraft data are accurate to +/- 0.50C, compared to the +/- 10 C-accuracy of satellites.

One Coast Guard aircraft is used by the Inter-national Ice Patrol to search and track icebergs.This plane is based in Newfoundland for the icepatrol season, usually between February andJuly. To augment the present visual searchmethod, new imaging radar is being developedfor the aircraft. Also, buoys are now deployedfrom the plane to measure sea currents in an ef-fort to predict with computer modeling the tra-jectories of icebergs. These buoys communicatedirectly with the Tiros-N satellite.

The U.S. Coast Guard also operates an Air-craft Oil Surveillance System (AOSS) using theC-130 Hercules. Currently scheduled for deliveryis a Falcon twin-engine jet aircraft, known asAireye, that will have a side-scanning radar, apassive IR, a UV line scanner, a passive micro-wave, and a camera. The main function of theAireye system is to detect oilspills in the oceanand to trace the oil to the ship or tanker causingthe spill. AOSS and Aireye are capable of nightand day operations.

NASA has a program to develop remote-sens-ing capabilities for use by aircraft (and satellites)involved in four aspects of physical and biologicaloceanographic research: sediment t ransport ,transport and fate of marine pollution, phyto-plankton dynamics, and ocean dumping,

Some ocean-dumping projects may be besthandled by aircraft because some dumping mate-rial that must be studied has a short surface-of-

102 • Technology and Oceanography

the-ocean life (4 to 8 hours), and a satellite mightnot be in the proper position in time for monitor-i n g .41

T h e N a t i o n a l M a r i n e F i s h e r i e s S e r v i c e(NMFS) charters several planes from privatecompanies for a variety of projects. The bulk ofNMFS airtime is devoted to working with theCoast Guard to enforce the fisheries law. One ofits related ongoing tasks is to count the porpoisesin the area from South Carol ina to CentralAmerica. In two major surveys (1977 and 1979)to count porpoises, both vessels and aircraft wereused. It was discovered that visual search bytrained observers from aircraft was the most ef-fective counting method. Results of the surveyshave not yet been fully evaluated, but these ef-forts undoubtedly constitute the major attemptthus far to count marine mammals from the air.I t has been reasonably well-establ ished thatmammal survey work cannot be done by photog-raphy, it requires visual search by trainedobservers.

Another NMFS project uses 50 to 60 days peryear to measure sea-surface temperatures forsport fishermen. A spotter in a plane over theGulf of Mexico, e.g., uses a low-light-level TV tosearch for schools of menhaden, which tend tocongregate near the ocean’s surface and shore inthe morning and to move to deeper water in theheat of the afternoon.

In two experiments NMFS studied the totalsuspended solids and chlorophyll concentrationsin the ocean. In 1977, NMFS began such a studyin the New York Bight. In April 1979, NMFS, incooperation with NASA, started the Large AreaMarine Productivity Experiment in which chloro-phyll, over a large shelf area, was measured froma U-2 or C-230 aircraft. Until this project, datawere taken periodically, and only from ships .42

NOAA uses aircraft in a variety of ways. ItsResearch Facilities Center (RFC) in Miami, Fla.,—

4 I Robert WI. Johnmn and Craig w, oh]horst , Ap/dicatlon of Re

mote Sensing to Monitoring and Studying Dispersion in OceanDumping, First International Ocean Du-mping Symposium, Kings-ton, R. I., Oct. 10-13, 1978.

4ZU. s, ~partment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmos-pheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Services, North-east Fisheries Service, LAMPEX (Large Area Marine Productivz”tyExper iment , Sea- Truth Data Re@rt, APT 17-19 , 1979, SandyHook Laboratory, report No. SHL - 19-28, July 1979.

Photo credit National Space Technology Laboratories

Air-droppable instruments are used to collectocean and geophysical data

provides instrumented aircraft in support of avariety of environmental research programs.RFC operates three four-engine turboprop air-craft, two WP-3D Orions, and one W C - 1 3 0 BHercules, equipped with sophisticated researchsystems capable of measuring a wide range of at-mospheric and oceanic parameters. In addition,RFC operates four helicopters in the conduct ofthe Outer Continental Shelf Environmental As-sessment Program. NOAA’s National Ocean Sur-vey operates two other aircraft to flightcheck air-craft charts; one of these aircraft is used to sup-port National Weather Service snow studies.

Another NOAA project involves the installa-tions of the Aircraft-to-Satellite Data Relay forweather forecasting on 17 Boeing 747’s owned byvarious airlines. Data on air temperature andwind velocity are collected every 71A minutes,stored, and broadcast once an hour. With the ad-dition of a microprocessor to this system, thepossibility of recording and transmitting addi-tional atmospheric observations by scheduledairliner and ship traffic is increased. Normally, aBoeing 747, records pressure altitude, radio alti-tude, air temperature, humidity, and air velocitywith respect to the aircraft and with respect to theground. These data are used by onboard com-puters to provide needed information for aircraftoperations. 43 NOAA is currently collecting this

tsErik M(llo-Christensen, Department of Meteorolo~, Massachu-

setts Institute of Technology, letter to OTA, Sept. 1, 1979.


data from 100 Boeing 747’s as part of the WorldWeather Experiment. The data are presentlystored on an aircraft tape recorder which mustlater be removed from the aircraft. An alterna-tive to collecting these data would be to inter-rogate the aircraft from communications satel-lites and to retransmit the data to a ground sta-tion.

Navy uses three oceanographic survey aircraft(RP-3A) assigned to the Oceanographic Develop-ment Squadron (VXN-F), located at the Patux-ent River Naval Air Station, Patuxent, Md. , toconduct oceanographic, acoustic, sea ice, andmagnetic surveys and other research experi-ments. These aircraft provide some direct sup-port to the fleet for Arctic and antisubmarinewarfare operations, but their major function is tocollect ocean and geophysical data to meet vari-ous high-priority requirements — for both opera-tional and research and development needs. Inaddition, Navy uses the ship Chauvenet and itsworkboats, to engage in nearly full-time bathy-metr ic measurements covering about 20,000linear miles, at a cost of $7.5 million, annually.About 200 times this coverage would be desir-able. To increase the areal coverage, Navy in-tends to let a contract for a pulsed, scanning,blue-green laser of about 350 kW to be installedon a helicopter. In daylight hours, this laserwould measure ocean depths to 20m and in typi-cal coastal waters should cover at least one-thirdmore area than the Chauvenet. At an expectedcost of $2.5 million, delivery should be in fiscalyear 1983.

The Defense Mapping Agency has a modestd e v e l o p m e n t p r o g r a m f o r u s i n g l a s e r s f o rbathymetry in coastal waters. The lasers will beinstalled on aircraft rather than on satellites inorder to maximize accuracy and to minimize thechance of personal injury from the laser. The Na-tional Ocean Survey, Navy, and NASA are joint-ly supporting development of the helicopter-mounted laser-depth measuring system.

Aircraft v. Spacecraft

NASA has conducted a comparison of costs fordedicated airplane and spacecraft missions for

remote water-monitoring of U.S. coastal zones .44NASA initially considered large, well-instru-mented aircraft because they provide large pay-load capacity at long range with adequate speed.It found, however, that large aircraft such as theRP-3 and C-130 cannot compete with small busi-ness airplanes such as the Falcon twin-engine jet.The twin-engine business jet provides reasonabledependability, is readily adaptable for carryingremote sensors, and does not require extensiveairport support facilities nor long runways. Fur-thermore, it has low operating and purchasecosts.

Compared to a satellite, an aircraft providesmore site-viewing opportunities, at less cost;however, an aircraft becomes 2 to 3 times morecostly than a spacecraft as the variable pathcoverage is increased and as the mission durationgoes beyond 3 years.

Moreover, aircraft have particular problemswith data management. Unlike satellite pro-grams such as Landsat and SMS/GOES that haveestablished, sophisticated ground-process sys-tems, the routine processing of aircraft gathereddata is plagued with problems from flight-patherrors, altitude variations along the flightpath,and altitude changes. In addition, data cannotbe retrieved easily without having to write a letterto the agency in charge of past flights in order toget the data in a computer-compatible format.This approach applies, e.g., to the Gulf Streamoverflights carried out by Coast Guard for whichthe resultant data appear as printed maps oftracks and roughly interpolated isotherms. Mod-ern technology can certainly ameliorate this sit-uation but Coast Guard may not have the in-house technological capability to do this at pres-ent.

Aircraft cover large areas more rapidly thanships can and with better spatial resolution thansatellites can. They are also capable of covering asmall area intensively over a short time. The op-timum approach suggested in the NASA studywould be to use satellites for large area, long-—.— . .—.—.—

ttwa ne L. Darnell, L’() m@ T;3(J??Y of Capabilities and Costs ofDedicated A ir@ane and Spacecraft Missions [or Remote WaterMonitoring of U S. Coastal Zones, NASA Technical MemorandumNo. 74046, December 1977.


term coverage and to use aircraft for complemen-tary coverage in high-pollution coastal areas.

Helicopters

Helicopters are in limited use aboard ocean-ographic research vessels. Three of Navy’s ships,two ships of NOAA, and five of the seven CoastGuard vessels are equipped for hel icopters .Helicopters are used more extensively for com-mercial transportation and for industrial opera-tions in coastal waters.

Commercial helicopter operations include in-spection, crew change, medical and emergencyevacuation, and ice surveillance. Navy uses heli-

copters extensively for antisubmarine warfareoperations where instrumentation arrays are low-ered into the water and towed at a much higherrate of speed than when towed by ship. Also,military helicopters are equipped with thermalscanners for measurement of infrared signatureof aircraft and ships. Oceanographic researchand operational use by the military has been lim-ited to testing new instrumentation systems. Likeaircraft, helicopters have dropped buoys andXBTs and have received data from them on wavemeasurements and water and air temperature.NOAA has used helicopters in the conduct of theOuter Continental Shelf Environmental Assess-ment Program.


OCEAN DATA SYSTEMS

Rapidly developing computer and communi-cations technologies have resulted in the genera-tion of large quantities of remotely sensed datathat will soon overload the present oceanic dataarchives unless the same technology is applied todata inventory, processing, and distribution.Much of the data generated is not convenientlyavailable outside of the major Federal agency of-fices. Thus, the growing need for more near real-time data for status and forecast information,coastal zone management, f isheries manage-ment, monitoring of marine pollution, and theinvestigation of many other oceanic problems isnot being met.

For data to be of value to a variety of users,program planners must plan not only for the col-lection of data, but also for the distribution andstorage of data. Designing for user needs cutsacross agency missions and requires considerationof var ious industr ia l , inst i tut ional , and in-dividual capabilities to handle data. One majorconsideration is whether to provide real-timedata, retrospective data, or both. Another con-sideration is how to standardize data formats inorder to store data in archive centers and to en-sure their easy availability to a large communityof users.

Data Archival Centers

Environmental Data and Information Service

In the context of data management, the archi-val centers outlive individual projects. Thus, itbecomes exceedingly important that they arewell-managed and provide the function of receiv-ing and distributing data with convenience andreasonable cost to the user.

Although many agencies and institutions areinvolved in the collection of oceanographic data,NOAA’s EDIS is the primary Federal organiza-tion specifically created to manage environmen-tal data and information for use by Federal,State, and local agencies, and the general public.To carry out this mission, EDIS operates a net-work of specialized data centers that include:45

— — — . —~bF~dpTa[ tlp~ls!pl, VOI. 44, No. 184, Sept. 20, 1979.

●

●

●

●

●

●

National Climatic Center– acquires, ar-chives, and disseminates climatologicaldata. It is not only the collection center andcustodian of all U.S. weather records butalso the largest of EDIS centers as well as thelargest climate center in the world. It in-cludes the Satellite Data Services Division.Satellite Data Services Division (SDSD)–provides environmental and Earth re-sources satellite data and products derivedfrom the data to its users after the originalcollection purpose is complete.National Oceanographic Data Center(NODC)–acquires, archives, and distrib-utes oceanographic data . I t houses theworld’s largest usable collection of marinedata. NODC operates EDIS’ mult idisci-p l i na ry E n v i r o n m e n t a l D a t a I n d e x(ENDEX) which provides over 14,000 refer-ral listings to data files held by NOAA, otherFederal agencies, State and local govern-ments, universities, and private industry.This referral capability greatly enhancesEDIS archival capabilities.National Geophysical and Solar- TerrestrialData Center– acquires, archives, and dis-seminates solid earth and marine geologicaland geophysical data. Maintains separatearchives for special data sets from programssuch as International Decade of Ocean Ex-ploration.Environmental Science and InformationCenter– is NOAA’s information specialist,librarian, and publishing branch. It pro-vides computerized literature searches fromover 100 automated bibl iographic databases.Center for Environmental Assessment Serv-ices — designs projects and services to providenational decisionmakers with data, analysis,assessments, and interpretations.

Discussion of Two EDIS Centers

The National Oceanographic Data Center .–Through a series of policy agreements negoti-ated with NOAA, many agencies (NSF, DOD,USGS, BLM) encourage or require their pro-

9(3-710 0 - 81 - 8


grams and contractors to follow EDIS data man-agement procedures. Some people specify thatselected oceanic data be archived at NODC. Alldata received by NODC are requested to be ac-companied by full documentation and instruc-tions for this documentation are widely distrib-uted. Much of the data archived at NODC is inthe form of averages made over large regions andat irregular time intervals. This averaged data isinadequate for studying many dynamic oceanprocesses. In addition, data at NODC are storedin many other forms, much of it just as it is re-ceived; accuracy and calibration information isoften missing from data files. Guidelines for dataformat submissions could be improved, and man-agers of programs could be required to take datamanagement and archival needs into considera-tion during project planning.

Since NODC is and will remain the primarydata bank for archiving oceanographic data andsince instrumentation and data-distribution tech-nology is changing rapidly, a review of NODCpractices seems necessary in order to providefaster access and wider public distribution ofdata from Federal programs.

Centralizing all oceanographic data in a singledata center may not offer the specialized ad-vantages of using distributed data storage meth-ods. ENDEX and the Oceanic and AtmosphericScientific Information System have been estab-lished by NOAA to provide users with a com-puterized referral to available environmentaldata files and published data in the environmen-tal sciences and marine and coastal resources,respectively. This centralization is a natural firststep in establishing distributed archival centersboth on a data content and regional basis avail-able on dial-up computer terminals.

Satellite Data Services Division. –Satellitedata services from NOAA’s SDSD of EDIS are co-located with NESS’ operations center. Each daySDSD receives hundreds of satellite images in avariety of forms — negatives, film loops, andmagnetic tapes. NOAA’s archive, present since1974, contains several million images from theearliest meteorological satellites of the 1960’s

through those from the most recent geostationaryand orbiting spacecraft. 46 47

Satellite data are most often received in theform of photographic imagery. The quantitativeinformation that can be derived from a photo-graph is limited. Analysis of satellite data re-quires data that are available in computer-com-patible formats. To accomplish this task, format-ting must be considered on a user basis duringsatellite design. Normally, natural formats areused that optimize acquisition. In such cases,there is a need to develop standards for refor-matted “exchange formats” for users.

Since January 1980, all digital data fromsatellites have been archived permanently. Ques-tions about exchanging formats to provide com-patibility of these data to users needs must beanswered. Some have suggested that part of thebudget for satellite efforts should be devoted tom a k i n g d a t a m o r e r e a d i l y u s a b l e b y n o n -Government organizations. This would forcedata management planning, including distribu-tion and archiving, on the agencies that now pro-duce satellite data so that the data is available incompatible formats . This wil l a lso preventsatellite projects from being solely based on in-house science and users and would require the in-put of data management ideas from the outsidein an effective manner .48

Files at SDSD contain imagery from manyoperational and experimental spacecraft. In ad-dition to the visible light images, infrared imagesa re ava i l ab l e f rom Nimbus , N O A A , a n dSMS/GOES satellite series. The imagery from ex-perimental, polar-orbiting satellites is in greatdemand by investigators around the world, andconstitutes one of the archive’s most activeholdings.

4SUs. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmos -

pheric Administration, Environmental Data Service, “Environmen-tal Satellite Data from NOAA ,“ publication No. PA-75021, 1976.

4TU.S. Department of Commerce, National Environmental Satel-

lite Service, “Satellite Data Users Bulletin, ” vol. 1, No. 2, August1979.

4a’’ COMSAT Auditions for Television, ” New York Times, Jan. 6,1980.


In SDSD archives, the Tiros-lV data are cata-loged in the form of composite pictures of theNorthern and Southern Hemispheres made uponmosaics of Tires imagery. The catalog is issuedmonthly, typically 6 months after the data havebeen obtained. The photographic images are notcorrected for viewing angle nor arranged ingeographical coordinates, and the navigationaldata have to be figured out from orbital informa-tion if there are no landmarks visible. Since thereare no landmarks in the ocean, it is often difficultto interpret the data.

The current archives are increasingly unable tohandle the present digital data system, and newsatellite programs will exacerbate the problem.Large data-base management systems will beneeded to properly archive and retrieve data andto coordinate activities of the various NOAA datacenters in the future.

Data Acquisition

There are three categories of oceanographicdata that are collected. The first includes in situmeasurements provided in various formats byeither research investigators or survey groups.The second is surface data transmitted frommonitoring stations such as ice stations or ocean-data buoys. The third is data from remote sen-sors, including directly transmitted satellite data,and recorded data, like that from aircraft.

Data from all categories are being fed into thedata centers at increasing rates. Large-scale proj-ects are providing large new bases of category 1data. The National Ocean Data Buoy program isproviding category 2 unattended surface data;and the various satellites are furnishing a down-pour of category 3 data. Very few of these pro-grams were reviewed at their inception with re-spect to data archival needs/requirements.

To handle the increased data rates so that datafrom ships, satellites, and buoys can be com-pared, processed, and analyzed together, it maybe necessary to equip some oceanographic shipswith compatible data systems that label all datain a consistent manner and that produce in-

formation for the national file as soon as possibleafter data have been taken. Such an acquisitionsystem could also collect auxiliary data, such aswater temperature and salinity, windspeed, baro-metric pressure, depth of water, navigation data,and other variables. With compatible ship data-logging systems, there would be an incentive tostandardize the interfaces between instrumentsand data loggers. Moreover, if academic shipoperations are centralized into regional centers,the ship data system could be the responsibility ofthe regional center. For NOAA’s fleet, it mayalso be advantageous to centralize the data andship instrumentation activity.

If the automatic means of acquiring the dataand then transmitting the data via satellites isachieved, significant new data bases may result.Present satellite data have been discussed fairlyextensively. However, future satellite systems willeach introduce new problems of acquisition bythe data centers.

Data Distribution

Conventional distribution of data from ar-chives is accomplished by the physical transmittalof the data media, e.g., by mail. Data distribu-tion via communication satellite will also becomeimportant, thus entailing data distribution fromcentral computerized storage to distant analysislaboratories. Automatic data retrieval systems,transmitters, receiving systems, and methods fordata request and charging must be developed byNASA and NOAA.

Landsat and Seasat: Two Recent Data Dis-tribution Examples. — The Landsat program,after 9 years of successful operation, is improvingits distribution system by making available dial-up inquiry of inventory. This service will indicatethe data available by display on a computer ter-minal. This combination of easy access to inven-tory listing and the mailing of data tapes for useon the user’s computers probably represents thebest present compromise between economy andconvenience.


Seasat-A was the first ocean research satellite.Its data were initially furnished to the various in-vestigators whose participation was selected byprior proposal reviews and acceptance. However,data from Seasat-A are of special interest tomany oceanographers. During its operation, Sea-sat-A collected a unique combination of simul-taneous data on sea-surface temperature, rough-ness, elevation, and waves.

NOAA/EDIS has started to distribute 70 mmcopies of quarter-width swaths of the syntheticaperture radar data from Seasat; however, thedifferent swaths are not assembled or combined,the navigational and time information is notreadily available, and no combined data setsfrom all sensors are readily available. Onlylimited data are available in digital form outsideof the Federal agencies and there has been noconcerted effort to make the data available to theoutside scientific community.

The Seasat failure reduced the urgency of de-vising a data distribution operation. However,some of the Seasat sensors were innovative andhave provided data challenging to interpret.

Direct Satellite Data Receivers.-–EDIS can-not meet the needs of direct readout users oflarge volumes of satellite data. These users mustuse their own receiving antennas, which can bequite simple for low-resolution data, such as thatused by TV stations to obtain data for weatherforecasting. Many users have elaborate groundsystems since they process the data qualitativelyfor operational or research purposes. At NASA,data from the geosynchronous meteorologicalsatellites (GOES) are transmitted to NASA’sground station, are processed and reformatted,and are sent back to NOAA/GOES satellites forreformatted retransmission to the ground stationsof data users.

For small volume, nonscientific users, data canbe received from EDIS or other sources by directcommunication links. The simplest system fordisplay and some analysis of reformatted data forthe skilled user is a microcomputer equippedwith a tape recorder (and a video monitor) toenter data. This system will display data andenhance contrasts, but will be unable to do morethan rudimentary analysis and data combina-

tion. Such a system may be useful for shipoperators, weather forecasters, and limited scien-tific and educational purposes.

An example of a large volume scientific user isThe Scripps Institution of Oceanography (S1O)which has a ground station for receiving raw (un-processed) sensor data and computer facilities forhandling the algorithms necessary to convert thedata to scientific and engineering units. Thesystem costs (about $700,000) were borne byNASA and Navy. Operating costs are beingshared by NASA, Navy, and NSF. Utilization ofthe system is running at about 18 hours a day, 7days a week, using data from Tiros-N, Nimbus,and NOAA -6. The system is being used not onlyfor scientific purposes, but also, more important-ly, to educate oceanographers in the use ofsatellite data. Investigators from other organiza-tions besides SIO (such as the Fisheries Center ofNOAA) are using the system.

A group of university and Government labora-tories in New England have proposed to establisha regional satellite remote-sensing data cen-ter .49 50 The center would have antennas for r e-ceiving data from several satellites and wouldprovide data processing, storage, and analysis. Asignificant part of the cost of such a system wouldbe its operations, since a system which acquiresdata on a routine basis will have to be staffed tomeet data requests as well as to handle data ac-quisition. However, many institutions could beserved economically by one center because thetotal cost of data systems is small compared to thecost of data stations and their operation. In fact,the cost will, as technology advances, possiblydecrease.

Data Management

The Federal agencies responsible for handlingand distributing oceanic data must improve theirdata management systems. The present ap-proach to data management will not be adequate

— .49u s D e p a r t m e n t of c o m m e r c e , N a t i o n a l O c e a n i c a n d A t m o s -. .

pheric Administration, Proposed Regional Remote Sensing, Receiv-ing and Processing Center, Neu~ England Remote Sensing Notes,No. 1, February 1980.

J50 o5eph p. Mahoney, Genera] Services Administration, letter to

Paul F. I“witchell, Office of Naval Research, Attachment “RegionalSatellite Receiving Station, ” Mar. 3, 1980.


in the future, particularly when new satellitesystems begin to acquire very large amounts ofdata.

The costs of collecting environmental satellitedata can only be justified by effective use of thedata for national purposes. Weather and clima-tology prediction and assessment, ocean climateand productivity research, and direct use by ship-ping, fisheries, and other economically vital ac-tivities are examples of such use.

For all large data-collection programs, usingsatellites or ships or combinations of stations, itappears important that data management plansbe prepared for both real-time and retrospectivedata users. The data archiving centers such asEDIS should be part of those plans but may notbe the only part. The centers, however, must beconcerned with overall Federal capabilities inmaking data available to suit user needs.

In order to ensure that environmental satellitetechnology programs serve the intended usercommunity and deliver the data products thatjustified the satellite, plans for satellite and otherremote environmental-sensing programs shouldinclude specific plans for data distribution, in-

cluding methods for quality control, formats ofdata products, near real-time and retrospectivedata distribution, cataloging and storage. With-out such a plan, a remote-sensing program willbe incomplete and its benefits uncertain.

Because one cannot predict all future uses ofdata, data formats need to provide adocumentation of the data so that dataferent sources can readily be used incontext and combined and compared.

completefrom dif-the sameThe logi-

cal format for Earth sensor data- would be basedon geographical coordinates and time. Satellitedata should be available in geographical coordi-nates, corrected for viewing angle, spacecraftposition, and altitude.

While communications and data processingtechnology is available for environmental datadissemination, there is a need for a policy and aplan to prevent expensive duplication and thepossible establishment of duplicative and in-compatible systems. This can be done by decid-ing on a few general rules for data availabilityand formats, and by describing general featuresof a data dissemination system.


MANAGING TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

Whether the foregoing assemblage of oceantechnology, and the related National capabil-ities, will be adequately maintained or improvedin the future depends on Federal agency manage-ment efforts.

The planning for research and developmenttakes many forms, some formal and some quitecasual. The more technologically oriented agen-cies, such as Navy and Coast Guard, have veryformal procedures. Others, such as NOAA, havenot developed formal documentation proceduresfor planning. It is sometimes argued that the for-mal planning procedures give rise to too great apaper load, that too many documents are gen-erated, and that no one knows how to use thedocuments generated. The purpose of most plan-ning documents does not lie in the documentitself but in the process that it forces the plannerto use. The process includes determining thebenefi ts of a program, coordinat ing mult i -programs, determining schedules, and determin-ing the facilities and the technology to bedeveloped. The need for coordination betweenprograms within an agency and with those ofother agencies has necessitated the designation oflead agencies for particular programs.

The technology development programs withinthe Federal ocean agencies have been reviewedand critiqued by a number of study groups overthe past few years. As a result, it is generallyclaimed that the existing organizations do nothave adequate management and technical capa-bilities in technology development and that im-provements are needed. 51 52 53

Government agencies having ocean missionsmake use of many related ocean technology disci-plines, using Government organizations as well ascontractors to accomplish tasks. The size andorganization of ocean technology groups and

s Icommission of Marine Sciences, Engineering, and Resources,Our Nation and the Sea ( Washington, D. C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, January 1969).

wu, s. Department of Commerce, National Advisory Committeeon Oceans and Atmosphere, Engineering in the Ocean, Nov. 15,1974.

53R. E. Bunny, et al. , “The Report on NOAA’s Ocean Engineer-ing Baseline Study, ” Aug. 22, 1977.

projects within the agencies vary greatly. Someagencies that support major ocean programshave very little expertise within their staffs, whileothers have a long history in ocean engineering.

To a large extent, the structure and organiza-tional positions of engineering groups within anagency depend upon the characteristics of theagency and the relative role that engineeringplays in accomplishing agency missions. For ex-ample, Navy is heavily technology-based, and itscapability of “ fulfilling many missions in thefuture depends on technology advances; thus, theresearch, development, and testing aspects ofNavy’s support organizations are accented. Onthe other hand, most of the activities of EPA areeither scientific or regulatory; relatively littleocean engineering development is supported bythis agency.

Coast Guard, like Navy, is heavily dependenton technology advances to accomplish its increas-ing offshore work. The Arm y Corps of Engineersis likewise technology oriented in both beach ero-sion and dredging activities. Both Coast Guardand the Corps of Engineers have strong, highlyvisible engineering organizations.

NASA’s engineering activities are very strongin space vehicles and in remote sensing used inoceanographic and other applications. While itsactivities requiring ocean technology have beenlimited up to now, there are indications thatNASA is increasing its oceanic efforts to gain agreater ground-truth data base for use with air-craft and spacecraft remote-sensor data collec-tion systems.

The Department of the Interior’s ocean engi-neering activities are closely coupled to offshorepetroleum leasing and management. USGS ischarged with assuring the conservation of re-sources and the protection of the environment inresource development. Ocean engineering atUSGS is accomplished within the geology andconservation divisions, at field verification andinspection offices, and under contract.

The technology developments sponsored byNSF are of three types: ship construction and


maintenance, oceanographic instrumentation,and deep-sea drilling. All are essentially con-tracted out in conjunction with the scientific pro-grams. Much ocean engineering development isaccomplished by the academic institutions inconjunction with NSF-funded science programs.

The Department of Energy (DOE) has a lim-ited staff concerned with oceanic programs, andits programs are highly technical, e.g. , oceanthermal energy conversion. Consequently, DOEmust depend mainly on outside contractors andconsultants and on other Government agenciesfo r ocean eng inee r i ng suppo r t . Wh i l e t h i sapproach may have some merit, the internal staffis limited in ocean engineering experience andthus cannot conduct detailed in-depth reviews ofits programs.

NOAA’s overall engineering efforts are numer-ous. Most of NOAA’s activities depend on tech-nology, and every major subdivision of NOAAhas an engineering component, although notnecessarily directly related to ocean engineering.Many of the same technologies are used in theweather service, the marine fisheries service, theocean survey, the climate program, and the envi-ronmental laboratories.

Two of NOAA’s organizations concerned withengineering, the Office of Ocean Engineering(except for underseas operations)–which waspart of Research and Development –and the Of-fice of Marine Technology-–which was part ofthe National Ocean Survey — have recently beencombined into a new organization, the Office ofOcean Technology and Engineering Services(OTES), under the direction of the Administra-tor for Ocean and Atmospheric Services. OTES isassuming the functions of the replaced organiza-tions. The charter for the new organization is:

● to provide basic ocean engineering supportand to develop advanced technologies to im-prove NOAA’s products, services, and obser-vations of the atmospheric and oceanic con-ditions from marine stations; and

● to provide technological support of selectednational programs, such as ocean energy de-

velopment (under DOE programs), resourcemanagement, and others. 54

Assuming transfer of personnel and funds fromthe former activities, the new OTES division willhave a staff of about 138 people of which 72 willbe engineers. Work locations will be at NOAAheadquarters and at least three field laboratories.

The types of projects that this new division willhave, based on the projects contained within itspredecessor organizations, include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

bathymetric swath survey system;shipboard acoustic current-profiling system;underway towed water-sampling system;tidal height-measuring system;coastal ocean dynamics application radarfor current measurements;data buoy development and operations;advanced digital side-looking sonar (withNASA);continuous in situ sediment analyzer;ocean thermal energy conversion (support toDOE); andanalysis of ocean-pollution observation sys-tems.

While the merging of NOAA’s engineering of-fices into OTES may solve some of NOAA’s engi-neering management problems by using moreengineers to support NOAA ocean programs, itappears that other management problems muststill be addressed. NOAA engineering groups arescattered throughout the many components ofNOAA (65 engineers and technicians are locatedat various NOAA marine centers). The overallengineering capability of the scattered com-ponents will depend on how communications areestablished.

While NOAA’s organization management doesnot show engineering within EDIS, it is apparentthat emphasis within that organization on engi-

— — —54LJ s Department of Commerce, Nat iona] Oceanic and At mos-. .

pheric Administration, ocean Engzncertrrg Programs [n th< N a -tional Oceanic and A t mospher-tc A rirnzn~stratlonl Washington,D. C., Mar. 31, 1980.

112 • Technology and Oceanography

neering aspects could aid in the archiving andmanagement of data.

For the newly formed OTES to gain a crediblecapability, it must gain a stronger and broaderbase of engineering expertise, provide communi-cation channels and exchange of skills betweenengineers throughout NOAA, provide a directline of engineering advice to the Administrator ofNOAA, and initiate more cost-effective engineer-ing solutions to NOAA’s engineering-relatedproblems.

One of the most important goals is to gain astronger base of expertise. The central office fortechnology development at NOAA must haveadequate authority and capability to address theimportant technology problems in oceanographyand in NOAA. Otherwise, the routine engineer-ing-support tasks could better be done in the lab-oratories and in other field operations.

Technology management capability within theagencies varies quite considerably, some beingweak and others being strong. Some agencies,such as DOE with large technological programs(OTEC) have little ocean engineering manage-ment capability. Others, such as Navy, have con-tinuing strong technological needs and havestaffed accordingly. Still others such as NOAAhave considerable technological efforts buried intheir agency programs but have not provided astrong technological focus within the agency.Programs to advance the ocean engineering tech-nological base do not get strong support outsideNavy. The concept of an institute, such as thatproposed by the National Advisory Committee onOceans and Atmosphere, for providing a strongsupport to the civil sector has not been under-taken by any of the agencies, and it appears thatmost Federal efforts in ocean engineering will re-main as scattered and diffuse as the programsand research needs are now.

technology and oceanography: an assessment of federal

Documents