You can download this report as a PDF file (322 KB)
This report provides recommendations by UNOLS to the National Science Foundation (NSF) concerning relative priorities for certain elements of the Regional Class Science Mission Requirements. These recommendations were prepared by the Regional Class Advisory Committee and approved by the UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee and UNOLS Council.
At the request of the National Science Foundation, UNOLS was tasked with providing relative priorities for some of the Science Mission Requirements (SMR) for new Regional Class research vessels. A report with UNOLS recommendations was requested by mid to late June 2004. A Regional Class Advisory Committee was formed to review the relevant SMR elements, seek community input and to draft a set of recommendations that would be provided to NSF by UNOLS after further community review and input. In order to accomplish this task in the short time frame provided, the use of phone and web conferencing, email and web based questionnaires was employed.
To kick off the effort, NSF with support by the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) and the naval architect firm, John J. McMullen Associates (JJMA), provided an assessment of the various SMR elements and ranked them as high, medium and low impact. This was based on the impact these particular elements would have on the overall size, construction cost, and operation of any Regional Class vessel design. NSF asked that UNOLS prioritize or rank order the high impact SMR elements and to indicate any areas where these requirements could be reduced below the published values. The high impact SMR elements include: science berthing, deck space, lab space, endurance, range, speed and sea-keeping.
The Chair of FIC in conjunction with the Chair and members of the previously formed Regional Class Science Mission Requirements (SMRs) Steering committee created a Regional Class Advisory Committee (RCAC) to address this issue. The goals for the makeup of this committee were to have disciplinary and regional balance as well as institutional and gender diversity. The committee should also include operational representatives. Requests for interest in participating in this effort were sent to all those scientists and operators that had contributed to the development of the Regional Class SMRs either by submitting comments and/or by attending the SMR workshop. Over thirty people expressed an interest in serving on the RCAC. The final choices of committee members were made with the above goals in mind.
- Wilford Gardner, Chair, TAMU, Gulf, geo-chem
- Vernon Asper, USM, Gulf, bio-geo
- Cynthia Moore, RSMAS, East/Gulf, chem-optics
- Joan Bernhard, WHOI, East, bio
- David Townsend, U. Maine, East, bio
- John Morrison, North Carolina State Univ., East, phys oc
- Bruce Corliss, Duke, East, geo
- Curt Collins, NPS, West, phys oc
- Charles Paul, MBARI, West, geo
- Frank Sansone, U. Hawaii, West, geo-chem
- Stewart Lamerdin, MLML, West, ops-technician
- Louis Zimm, SIO, West, ops-captain
- Steve Lanoux, UT, Gulf, ops-management
- Steve Rabalais, LUMCON, Gulf, ops-management
- Also participating: Dave Hebert, FIC Chair, URI, phys oc
JJMA prepared a presentation, which showed several variants of mono-hull and swath vessel designs that could meet the published Regional Class SMRs to various degrees. In addition, they showed how various SMR elements impacted the design. This report was made available to members of the RCAC and to anyone providing input to the committee. This report is attached as an appendix.
A questionnaire was prepared by the Regional Class Steering committee and posted online for input by the UNOLS community. Requests were sent to all UNOLS representatives, Council and committee members as well as all those that had participated in the creation of the Regional Class SMRs. The questionnaire was also linked from the UNOLS homepage. A total of 86 people completed the questionnaire. These responses were summarized and posted to the website and reviewed by the RCAC. A summary of these results is attached as an appendix.
A phone and web conference was held on Friday, June 4th from 1 to 4 pm EDT during which the JJMA report and questionnaire results were reviewed. The RCAC then discussed the various high impact SMR elements and identified those areas where they felt there was general consensus regarding relative priorities and acceptable values. Some areas were not quite as clear, but a sense of what might be acceptable was formed and this was articulated in the draft report and circulated for community input. Minutes of the phone conference were circulated to the RCAC and NSF and are attached as an appendix.
A draft report with recommendations by the RCAC was created and circulated to NSF and the community for comment. Input received was incorporated into a final report, which was forwarded to NSF by FIC and the UNOLS Council and published to the community on the UNOLS website.
For the most part, the RCAC and many members of the community that provided input believe that the published SMRs remain a valid description of the scientific requirements for Regional Class vessels. Given the desire to keep the overall size, construction cost and operating cost lower, the RCAC and UNOLS recommend that the Regional Class vessel can be designed with some reductions in the published Science Mission Requirements and by giving priority to some elements over others when and if choices are necessary. The range can be reduced to somewhere between 12,000 and 10,000 km. Endurance should be maintained at a minimum of 21 days, however extending endurance to 30 days should be given less importance. The vessel should be designed to a maximum speed of 12 knots and a fuel-efficient cruising speed between 10 and 11 knots. Cruising speeds greater than 11 knots and maximum speeds greater than 12 knots are not a high priority. Sea-keeping remains a high priority for these vessels, but not to the extent that a SWATH vessel hull form would be preferred. A mono-hull design, optimized for sea-keeping, is preferred for flexibility in operations, payload, draft and lower cost. For choices in the allocation of space in the Regional Class design, the RCAC and UNOLS recommend that every attempt be made to stay within the ranges provided in the published requirements by using a balanced and flexible design. While maintaining the minimal number of science berths at 16, the design should give highest priority to free and clear deck space with a well-designed capability to handle two vans. Lab space is the second priority, with the ability to use vans for added lab space providing the required flexibility. The ability to provide additional or surge berthing was the lowest priority relative to deck and lab space. The use of smaller staterooms and the careful design of toilet/shower spaces and common use spaces should be incorporated to meet space utilization goals. Although not listed as a high impact SMR, the committee felt that habitability requirements remain a high priority and that designers should make every effort to incorporate recreational and meeting space in the designs, especially if stateroom sizes are kept to a minimum.
Preferences expressed in the survey for deck space, lab space or berthing were a somewhat mixed bag. Deck space was chosen as the first priority by most, with lab space second priority and berthing space the third priority.
When making choices between deck, lab and berthing space, it is important to maintain a logical ratio and balance. A design should not sacrifice lab space to creating berthing to the extent that there is no room for the extra scientists to work. The converse is true; creating a huge lab space for a minimal science complement would not make sense either. Lab spaces should be reduced in number as well as size, being careful not to create spaces that are largely unusable due to their small size (i.e., CAPE Class wet lab).
The following three charts show the amount of lab, deck and combined lab/deck space per science berth for the current UNOLS vessels and those contemplated by the SMRs and this report.
Maintaining flexibility in the design is a very high priority. This is probably the greatest reason for giving deck space precedence over lab and berthing space. With greater deck space, it is simpler to temporarily (or even permanently) provide additional lab space through the use of vans. A well-placed and properly designed van could also be used for berthing, although this option is not recommended by many people. The published SMR gives appropriate cautions.
The published requirement, calling for 16 berths at a minimum and a surge capacity of 4 additional berths, continues to be the choice of most. Some respondents continue to believe that a greater number of science berths should be provided and a few felt that less than sixteen were required on permanent basis, but that a surge capacity to at least sixteen was desired.
Total berths required will be affected by number of crew and technicians as well as total science berths. For this class vessel, the use of smaller staterooms can be used, especially in the case of private single person staterooms. It is still desirable to maintain science berthing at two-person staterooms for the normal minimal complement and single staterooms for the crew is desirable.
Generally speaking, the committee is concerned that attempts to create surge berthing may result in designs that contain too many compromises or create berthing options that are not useable. If at least 16 and perhaps more science berths are provided, then the creation of surge berthing becomes a lower priority.
Options for creating surge berthing could include the use of a well-designed berthing van in conjunction with a location on the O-1 deck that is mated directly to the superstructure. Any location should be capable of very secure attachment, protection from weather/seas and protected access to and from the interior of the vessel. A head/shower should be located nearby.
Other options could include some staterooms that are large enough and designed to carry 3 or 4 scientists in a surge capacity or third drop down berths in several staterooms. The ability to convert other spaces, such as lounge areas do not hold much promise as these areas would be in more demand when a larger science complement was embarked.
In the JJMA report on regional class vessel hull forms, the smaller size variant was designed with community heads (toilet/shower) that were designed to accommodate more than one person at a time. These so-called "group heads" are not considered a viable option and should be avoided if at all possible. There was a preference for semi-private heads (a head shared between two cabins), however, some preferred single person units that opened into passageways and would be more of a community space. There are pluses and minuses to both approaches. It was agreed that the ratio of people per head should remain at four, except for cases where surge berthing is employed. In that case, ratios as high as six per head could be used. A creative approach to provide community and semi-private toilet shower space should be examined. In any event, at least one community toilet should be provided on the main deck.
The habitability SMR was not included among those presented by JJMA as having a high, medium or low impact on vessels size and cost. The RCAC, however believes that habitability issues are a high priority and some of these items may have an impact on overall size of these vessels. In particular, common use spaces such as lounges, science meeting space, mess deck and recreational spaces will compete with other space uses. The committee felt that it was important to provide for these areas on this class of vessel, especially if staterooms are kept at a minimal size. Again creative use of space and designing spaces for multiple use will help to allow for these common areas without expanding the overall size of the vessel.
The published range of a desired deck space remains valid. At least 1,000 sq ft of clear deck space aft of the main house is required and when you include the contiguous waist area on the starboard side, the minimum should be 1,300 sq. ft. First priority should be given to increasing the clear deck space aft of the house to at least 1,200 sq ft and a total working area of 1,500 sq ft on the main deck.
Maintaining 50 ft of clear space along the starboard rail is considered a high priority.
These vessels should be capable of carrying two standard size vans. There is a preference for both van locations to be on the main deck, but the requirement is that at least one van space be located on the main deck. In all cases safe and secure access to vans by personnel should be provided for in the design.
Lab space was the second priority and should be kept as close to the published SMR requirements as possible. If choices must be made, lab space should be reduced before deck space and can be kept closer to the minimum requirements if necessary (1,000 sq ft).
Wet labs and main labs should be kept on the main deck, contiguous with the working decks. It may be possible to locate other labs on other decks if necessary.
Endurance was the first priority for most with range a second priority and speed a third priority when competing against each other. This is harder to interpret, but probably means that maintaining the ability to meet the minimum endurance and the shortened minimal range are more important than achieving greater speed. Sea-keeping was clearly a higher priority than increased speed.
There was clear consensus that the published range of 15,000 km was greater than what was required and that this value could be reduced to 12,000 km and perhaps as low as 10,000 km.
Endurance was an important consideration and was generally given a higher priority relative to range and speed for the Regional Class vessel design. Maintaining a minimum endurance of 21 days was given a high priority, however surge endurance to 30 days was given less importance. It is still desired, but not at the risk of significant increase in cost or reduction in other requirements.
Speed at the upper end of the published SMR requirement is not a high priority. Speeds greater than 12 knots are not required and should not come at the expense of sea keeping or a large increase in daily rate. A maximum speed of 12 knots is still desired, and an optimum cruising speed in the 10 to 11 knot range is acceptable.
Sea-keeping remains a high priority and takes precedence over speed in making hull form choices. Sea-keeping does not over-ride the negative aspects of choosing a SWATH vessel hull form (e.g., draft, payload, cost). The committee believes that a mono-hull design, optimized for sea-keeping makes the most sense for a Regional Class vessel.
It is clear that in order to provide maximum capability while at the same time keeping the overall size and cost of the Regional Class vessels under control it will be absolutely necessary to use creativity and to explore multiple ideas early in the design process.
At the same time community input is required at all stages to ensure that these ideas will meet their scientific requirements, especially when weighing one requirement against another.
Regional preferences for either a slightly larger or for a less expensive smaller design remain and it may be necessary to consider options or variations of a design that might be adapted to these varying requirements. Perhaps a scalable design could provide for regional differences with minimal additional cost if a single design cannot meet the needs of every region.
Many people felt that designing a capable research vessel that would meet the needs of many people while maintaining an operating cost close to that of existing Regional Class vessels should be a high priority, although this question was not asked explicitly in the questionnaire. Since the size of the crew has one of the biggest impacts on the cost of operations, designing for a crew size of no more than eleven, for example, would help to keep these costs lower. It is the opinion of several members of the committee that designing the vessel so that it would be less than 300 GRT and operated as an un-inspected research vessel would be an important goal to consider in keeping the cost down. Alternatively, crew size considerations could be explored with the Coast Guard in an attempt to develop a design for an inspected vessel that had a smaller crew complement.
| Parameter | Published SMR Capability or Characteristic | RCAC | |
| Recommendations | Comment | ||
|
|||
| Accommodations | 16 to 20 non-crew personnel | 16 minimum with Surge of 4 berths | Can use smaller staterooms |
| Heads | Ratio = 4 people/head | - Keep SMR ratio (4:1) - Avoid "group heads" - Semi-private preferred - 6 per head acceptable when surge berthing in use. |
At least one head on Main deck |
| Common Spaces | High priority | ||
|
|||
| Endurance | 21 days; surge capacity 30 days (15 transit and 15 station) | - Keep 21 day minimum - Surge to 30 days less important |
Highest operational priority |
| Range | 15,000 km | 12,000 km to 10,000 km | Second operational priority |
| Speed | 12 - 14 knots; 10 knots sustainable through sea state 4; 7 knots in SS 5 | Optimal cruising speed = 10 to 11 knots Max speed = 12 knots |
Third operational priority |
| Sea keeping | Ability to work in sea states 4 (1.25 - 2.5 m wave heights); >50% operational in SS 5 (2.5 - 4 m wave heights). | High priority and takes precedence over speed | Monohull preferred over SWATH |
|
- Balanced ratio between spaces needed - Maintain space flexibility | ||
| Working deck area | 1,000 sq ft minimum clear area aft of deck houses; desirable 1,500 sq ft. Additional contiguous minimum 50' x 10' area along one side for coring, etc. Total amount of clear working area available on the aft main deck should be at least 1,300 sq ft. | Keep SMR requirements. - 1st priority should be increasing clear deck space aft of the main house to 1,200 sq ft or greater. - 50 ft along STBD rail is high priority. - Space for 2 standard vans. |
Highest Space priority One van can be on upper deck if necessary or for berthing. |
| Laboratories | Total lab space should be a minimum of 1,000 sq ft (1,500 sq ft is desirable) including: Main (dry) lab area (800 sq ft) Separate wet lab/hydro lab (400 sq ft) Electronics/computer lab; separate or part of main lab. A separate electronics repair shop/work space for resident (and visiting) technicians is desirable. High bay/hanger space Climate controlled workspace or chamber (~100 sq ft) |
- Keep close to SMRs. - Labs should be reduced before deck space - Can be kept closer to the minimum SMRs if needed - Wet labs and main labs should be on main deck, but some other labs may be located on other decks if necessary. |
Second space priority - Additional lab space thru use of vans |
Federal Oceanographic Facilities Committee (FOFC), 2001, Charting the Future for the National Academic Research Fleet, A Long-Range Plan for Renewal, 32 pp
University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS), 2003, Regional Class Science Mission Requirements, 38 pp
I. JJMA report on high, medium and low impact SMRs (pdf file)
II.Questionnaire seeking community input
III. Summary of responses to questionnaire
You can download this report as a PDF file