UNOLS Research Vessel Technical Enhancement Committee (RVTEC)
2007 Annual Meeting
Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
Moss Landing, CA
November
6-8, 2007
A copy of these minutes are available as a pdf at <200711rvtmi.pdf>
Meeting
Minutes
Action
Items:
1. Appoint new nomination committee – In 2008 the Chair will be up for election
2. Untreated wood packaging – Include information in your pre-cruise planning documents. (RVTEC)
3. Regional Class – Post the SOR comments and recommendations as general guidelines for future ship design efforts (Office)
4. RF Frequency Spectrum Management Committee
Status Report:
Complete the RF Survey:
<http://www.shipops.oregonstate.edu/martech/rvtec/2007/RF_Survey-10-2007.xls>
and send it to Richard Perry and the UNOLS Office (RVTEC)
· Compile initial survey results and send to NSF (T. Gergely, A. Clegg, and E. Dieter) by mid-November (Subcommittee)
· Send results to CORF and Tom Gergely/Andrew Clegg (NSF)
· Continue to collect RF Frequency Spectrum use data (Subcommittee)
5. Marine Technician and Crew Retention Issues:
· Conduct Salary Survey - Set a deadline for submission and send a message to Tech managers and Marine Superintendents (Office)
· Complete salary survey and send to the UNOLS Office (RVTEC)
· Set up a wiki for dialog (Dale Chayes)
· Compile survey results and formulate recommendations (Subcommittee)
6. Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC):
Encourage all Marine Technicians to get TWIC cards. (RVTEC) - Send
recommendation to Council for all Chief scientists get TWIC cards.
7. MATE: Create a brochure for marine technician careers within the UNOLS Fleet. (RVTEC)
8. SAMOS Implementation – If your ship has an opportunity in 2008 for a SAMOS installation, contact Shaun. (RVTEC)
9. Export Controls – If you have information on any “Deemed Exports” send it to Tom Wilson. He will compile it and get the list out to the group. (Wilson)
10. HiSeasNet – Respond to letter to M. McNutt regarding antenna shadowing issue. Steve Foley/Jon Berger will draft a letter and send it to Bill Martin. Bill will forward the letter to RVTEC for consideration. If endorsed, response will be forwarded to M. McNutt.
11. HiSeasNet Training – Contact RVTEC about training opportunity. (Dave Fisichella)
12 New UNOLS Wire Safe Working Load (SWL) Standards: Post the Research Vessel Safety Standards (RVSS) appendix drafted by Matt Hawkins that deals with SWL on the RVSS project website. (Office)
- Review the SWL Appendix - and any other chapter of the RVSS – (RVTEC)
13. User groups – Any groups/subcommittees that would like to meet in 2008 in conjunction with RVTEC (Day-3, mornings, day before, etc), should contact Bill and Office.
14. Technical Services Information (TSI) Outline:
- Technical managers should try out the on-line TSI form and work to complete it in 2008.
- Annette will send instructions to each manager.
15. HiSeasNet Licensing – Obtain proof of licensing documentation from Steve Foley (RVTEC)
16. ADCP:
- Upgrade the firmware on your Ocean Surveyor system. (RVTEC)
- Refer scientists in need of ADCP information to Jules. (RVTEC)
17. 2008 INMARTECH Symposium (France):
- Contact the 2008 Organizers and determine a point of contact. (DeSilva)
- RVTEC managers should include travel funds in their budget to attend. (Tech Managers)
Appendices:
Meeting
Report:
Tuesday November 6th - Moss Landing Marine Laboratories Main Seminar Room
Meeting Called to Order – RVTEC met on November 6-8, 2007 at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories (MLML). Bill Martin, RVTEC Chair, presided over the meeting. The meeting followed the agenda (Appendix I) as recorded in this report. Stewart Lamerdin provided a welcome to MLML. RVTEC participants introduced themselves. The attendance sheet is included as Appendix II.
Accept 2006 RVTEC Minutes <200610rvtmi.pdf> - The minutes are available for review during the meeting. This item will be revisited later in the meeting.
RVTEC Vice-Chair Election – Motion made and passed to not appoint Marc Willis to the nominating committee (Dale/Findley). Bring nominations for Vice Chair to Marc.
Agency
Reports:
National Science Foundation (NSF) – Jim Holik provided the NSF report (Appendix III). The topics discussed include:
OCE Integrative Program Section Staffing:
· The Section Head position will re-advertised soon. Dolly Dieter is still the Acting Section Head
· Jim Holik was hired as a visiting scientist to replace Sandy Shor in the Ocean Technical Services and Ocean Instrumentation Program.
Jim Holik – Background:
· Sailed on Conrad in 1983
· PhD from TAMU in geophysics (work at Lamont)
· Worked with the oil company.
· Went to sea on Nathanial Palmer. In 1998 became manager of Tech services and marine management at ASA and then Raytheon.
FY 2008 Budget:
· The NSF Appropriation for FY 2008 has not been passed. NSF is currently operating under a Continuing Resolution which runs through November 16, 2007.
· Modest increases have been included in the House and Senate bills but the budget is not signed into law yet.
OCE Facilities - Budget planning for FY 08:
· FY08 is a very challenging year with Ship Operations projecting major shortfalls.
· The technicians and instrumentation programs will be impacted as well.
· Like FY07 Ship Operations had substantial prepay but even with this, increased costs and weak schedules are making FY 08 challenging.
· Technicians and instrumentation programs funding are expected to be similarly stressed.
· NSF continues to give high priority to training and communication and to support technician transfers between operators to educate each other and learn new ways to improve quality of service.
Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC):
· Scientific Ocean Drilling Vessel (SODV) MREFC funding started in FY 06
· The JOIDES Resolution is scheduled to resume drilling activities in Spring 2008
· Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV) MREFC funding began in FY 07
· Ocean Observatory Initiative (OOI) MREFC funding began in FY 07
OCE Midsize Infrastructure Initiatives:
· R/V Marcus Langseth Seismic Vessel (LDEO) currently undergoing sea trials and inspections. Its ship inspection is scheduled for 7&8 Nov. Science testing/calibration to run mid Nov 2007 to mid Jan 2008.
· The Human Occupied Vehicle (HOV) to replace Alvin is being designed by WHOI
· The Regional Class Research Vessels (RCRV) design efforts continue
Navy – Bob Houtman provided the report for Navy.
·
Navy also on a continuing resolution (CR). The current CR runs to mid-November.
·
He does not anticipate a decrease in ONR
Research Facilities budget (~$10M). There will be additional funds for Fleet
operations ($1-2M) from other Navy activities.
· They are assuming that there will not be any Navy plus-up funds in 2008. (there had been plus-up funds in previous years that totaled ~$5M annually.
· The estimated costs for Navy operations on UNOLS vessels in 2008 project a deficit between $2m and $2.5M.
· They are trying to find additional funds within Navy to support UNOLS Fleet operations.
·
Planning for the Ocean Class acquisition
continues – will be addressed in the "ship updates" section later in
the meeting
NOAA – Larry Loewen provided the report for NOAA.
·
NOAA is also under a Continuing Resolution and
are planning to lay up additional ships.
·
NOAA is working on their fleet renewal efforts
that would add ships to their Fleet and extend the life of others.
· As a result of last year’s fire at the piers in Seattle, NOAA is leasing piers from the city of Seattle.
·
Conversion of the Ocean Exploration vessel, Okeanos
Explorer, is underway in a Bellingham, WA shipyard. The vessel should be in service in late 2008.
·
NOAA’s fishery
vessel, Oscar Dyson, was equipped with an EM70 fisheries sonar.
USCG – Jon Berkson provided the USCG report (Appendix IV).
·
Their budget
is too complicated to talk about.
The Coast Guard polar icebreaker fleet
consists of three polar icebreakers. Two Polar-class icebreakers, the Polar Sea and Polar Star, which were both commissioned in the 1970’s, have
provided the annual heavy icebreaking services needed to break open a channel
into McMurdo Station. In addition, in past years, they have supported science
missions in both
Healy’s operating time since commissioning
has been dedicated to supporting Arctic research, except once – in early 2003 –
when it was sent to assist
Polar Star remains in caretaker status. The Coast Guard is currently working on awarding a contract to conduct a study on the maintenance requirements and crew options for long-term lay-up.
UNOLS Reports:
Fleet Improvement Committee (FIC) – Marc Willis gave the FIC report.
·
Marc is leaving the Marine Office at OSU and will
work full time on the AARV project starting in 2008.
· Darryl Swenson is taking over as the OSU at tech manager
·
The major activity of FIC is the Fleet
Improvement Plan. The Plan provides the
UNOLS perspective of where the fleet should be going. The FIC hopes to update it more often. The last
one was done in 1995.
Arctic Icebreaker Coordinating Committee (AICC) – Steve Hartz reported.
· He was just appointed to the AICC.
·
Steve reviewed the AICC meetings that took place
over the last year including the retreat in Feb 2007.
·
The AICC is work on prioritizing proposed
science upgrades for Healy.
· On Nov 16 and 17, 2007 the AICC will conduct debrief interviews with the PIs from the 2007 Healy science cruises (Sambrotto, Grebmier, Mayer)
·
The next AICC meeting is planned
for Nov 27-28 in
Scientific Committee for Aircraft Oceanographic Research (SCOAR) – Annette DeSilva reported. Slides are included as Appendix V.
· SCOAR’s last meeting was in Nov 2006 (teleconference)
· They are soliciting nominations for SCOAR Chair
· Focus – CIRPAS
Deep Submergence Science Committee - DESSC – Annette DeSilva reviewed the list of DESSC’s action items in 2007 (Appendix V):
·
NDSF User Debrief Process – DESSC has
formalized the reporting system for Chief-Sci interviews for Jason/Alvin/Abe-Sentry
·
NDSF/DESSC conducted a community Survey on
new control van design for Jason
·
Plans are underway for a workshop on the needs
of submersibles and robotic vehicles in early 2008
·
A DESSC Subcommittee has worked to
establish Safety Standards for Human Occupied Vehicles (HOVs). All Chapters have been drafted and are in
review
Marcus Langseth Science Oversight Committee (MLSOC) – Annette DeSilva provided the MLSOC report. (Appendix V)
· W. Steven Holbrook, U Wyoming is the MLSOC Chair)
· Their first official meeting was in Galveston, TX, Mar 2007, at the ship
· The key issues covered during the meeting include:
o Staffing
o Shipboard processing needs
o Lowering the threshold for user expertise.
o Shakedown cruise.
o Marine Mammal Observation (MMO).
o Ombudsman role.
o Long range planning.
· Fall AGU Meeting plans:
o MLSOC Lunch Meeting – Monday, mid-day, Dec 10th
o Town Hall Meeting, Monday evening, Dec 10
UNOLS Booth at AGU – Annette encouraged everyone to visit the UNOLS booth at AGU - #403.
Research Vessel Operators’ Committee (RVOC) and Safety Committee – Bill Martin provided the RVOC report (Appendix VI) He began by discussing wire testing. He encouraged operators to send a length of cable to Rick Trask (WHOI) and he will conduct a pull test to determine the break tension of the wire. The length should be terminated with the type of termination used for your wire. This test performed free of charge except for the cost of shipping your wire to Rick. Bill has asked Rick about getting a copy of the test standards so that institutions could have their wires tested locally to avoid shipping expenses and being without their termaination. The test standards were not yet available.
Safe Working Loads (SWL) Standards and TWIC will be discussed later in the meeting.
RVOC Safety Committee – Research Vessel Safety Standards (RVSS) Revision update status:
· The RVSS are nearly complete. The manual has undergone a complete re-organization to better distinguish between what is required by regulations and what is required by the Safety Manual. The items required by regulations have been thoroughly reviewed by Jon Alberts.
· Chapter Ten – Explosives has been removed and the pertinent content will be part of Chapter Nine
· A new chapter, Chapter 18 – Personal Safety has been added. Sexual harassment, Drug and Alcohol Policy, ADA Guidelines and General Science Party Safety will be included in this chapter
· The final draft will be circulated for comment.
· The revision is expected to be completed early 2008 and hopefully presented to the UNOLS Council at their spring meeting.
Untreated Wood Regulations – Bill Martin (Appendix VII)
· Bill encouraged RVTEC to add information to pre-cruise packet information and on web sites about wood packaging requirement. This must be discussed in pre-cruise planning. A stamp is needed on foods to insure that the environment has been insulted by treating this wood.
Data Management Best Practices
- Bob Arko, co-chair of UNOLS Data Ad Hoc Committee provided a status
report of their efforts. His slides are contained in Appendix VIII.
·
The Ad Hoc Committee was chartered by
UNOLS Council, March 2007.
·
Charge: “Report to the Council on
current community-wide best practices
·
In data and metadata capture when
collecting data at sea.”
·
Initial term: 1 year.
·
Committee membership list is in the slides. Co-chairs are Steve Miller (SIO) and Bob Arko
(LDEO).
·
Committee operations will be by e-mail, Web
portal data.unols.org, telecons, and meetings of opportunity.
·
Committee calendar was reviewed. They will meet at the Fall AGU meeting on
12/12/07.
·
Initial activities have included:
1. They refined their ad-hoc committee charter to,
“Report on best practices for data and metadata capture at sea and make
recommendations for improvement”.
2. Their audience is the UNOLS community: Platform operators, Data producers, (both
acquisition and processing), Data managers, End users (scientists, students,
etc)
3. They have conducted a survey of priorities.
·
The survey result identified:
o
Top issues:
§
Shipboard metadata creation
§
Shipboard data quality control
§
Shore side quality control
o
Mid-level issues:
§
Dissemination to repositories
§
Shipboard archiving and reproduction
§
Shipboard data access
§
Shore side data access
o
Other issues:
§
Data transport to shore
§
Foreign clearance requirements
§
Dissemination to scientists
·
Bob reviewed some of the related efforts
that are on-going within our community (see slides.
·
Next steps for the ad-hoc committee
include:
1. Identify minimum standard set of metadata and data
products.
• Expedition details (platform, science party, ports/dates,)
• Data inventory (samples, files, observations)
• processed products (navigation, MGD77/JGOFS files,)
(Etc)
2. Identify optimal path for flow of products from
ship to shore.
·
Committee materials and outcomes will be
continuously posted at:
http://data.unols.org. Feedback will be solicited at meetings of
opportunity e.g. RVTEC.
Drop a line to any committee member or to the UNOLS
Office.
Discussion Followed:
· Dale – how do foreign clearances become a data issue? Bob Arko – The data is always streaming. We have to be more aware of the data that is being collected. Some countries may object.
·
Dale – This could become a National
problem. Definition of EEZ is not always
clear. Rules about what you can and can not collect are driven by international
law and individual countries' laws and interpretation. Bob Arko – he feels that the data should be
available immediate.
· Stewart – Are you recommending a central repository? Bob – They will start out by providing the information that should be included in a proper data inventory/cruise report.
· Shawn – As member of data committee, they are still in the informative stage and haven’t figured out the final product. They are discussing the types of policies that UNOLS should adopt. Managing the data sets.
· Dale – Is it the purpose for the Council to adopt the policy and enforce it. Prince – this is complex. There are some policies that are governed by federal policy. It is not the intent to contradict federal policies. The Council will provide recommendations and advice to all operators. They can also make recommendations to agencies regarding agency policy.
· Jules Hummon – EEZ-crossings should be identified.
· Dave Fisichella – He would like UNOLS to help define what is allowed in the EEZs.
·
Sandy Shor – Remember this is not
a
·
Marc Willis – The scientists and
agencies would like the data to just flow off the ships. The technicians are the operator. It seems as if the marine techs are relieving
the scientists of the responsibility to do data processing and providing good
data. This is fundamentally wrong for
the Techs to be made responsible for providing the data. It is mission creep.
· Jim Holik – He had similar issues arise in his experiences in Polar operations. He feels that there is some data that could be provided by the operator. Science specific data should come from the scientist.
· Richard Perry – Will there be minimal data quality standards? Bob Arko – They haven’t gotten there yet, but will probably happen soon.
· Bob Arko – He understands the importance of not imposing unfunded mandates.
· Toby – Quality, analysis, etc. Most institutions stream the data and provide it to the scientists. It is not difficult to make another stream, but it has to be clear that the techs can’t be responsible for the processing.
· Rich Findley– we would have to add techs to our operations if processing becomes a responsibility.
· Toby – It must be recognized that it is raw data that we are providing.
· Bob Arko – They have an opportunity with Langseth and can see what can be done. Then perhaps move it further to the other large ships.
· Stewart – The committee must remember that there are also smaller ship operations. The data guidelines seem to be more applicable to large ships. As the committee is drafting the recommendations, the diversity of the ships must be remembered. This has the potential to be very expensive to implement – some ships don’t have time stamps, etc.
· Mike Prince – Dave Forcucci, Shawn Smith, and Bill Fanning are also on the committee. If there are concerns, let them know.
· Shawn – They were attempting to find underway data in the National Archives – impossible. Not sure if the data is just not getting in there. The Techs are out there collecting data – it should be recognized and acceptable.
· Shawn – NODC has just brought on two more people – hopefully some of the underway data issues will be resolved.
·
Stewart – Isn’t it NSF policy for
scientists submit data?
Break
Ship Updates:
· UAF entered a Cooperative Agreement with NSF. The project has four phases:
Phase 1 – Project Execution Plan & Design Refresh
Phase 2 – Bid Package Prep & Shipyard Selection
Phase 3 – Construction
Phase 4 – Pre-Operation Testing/Trials
· Steve reviewed details of each phase. Each phase requires oversight review and approval before proceeding to the next phase.
o Phase 1 Tasks - 9 Months $2.5 Million
o Phase 2 - 3 months $.8 million
o Phase 3 - 24 months $113 million
o Phase 4 - 12 months $7 million
Key project personnel are listed in the slides. Marc Willis will participate as the Shipyard Marine Technician.
There is an ARRV Oversight Committee (AOC) that includes a Naval Architect, Polar Marine Scientists, Marine Superintendents, Marine Technical Specialists, Alaska Native/Coastal Community, and NOAA Fisheries.
The total project cost is $123M. If all progresses as planned the ship should be ready for service in 2011. The big risk item is the ability to contract a shipyard.
Regional Class Steering Committee – Stewart Lamerdin reported on the Regional Class Acquisition effort.
· Stewart introduced the Navy PEO-Ships reps – Dan Rolland, Dave Barksdale, and Caitlyn Jarecki.
·
He gave the history of project:
o
Two competing design/build teams were selected
Dakota Creek & Nichols Brothers
o
A stop work order was issued in December 2006 by
NSF. Ship specs were revised to include
a construction budget cap.
o
Yesterday (11/5) one of the ship yards went out
of business: Nichols Brothers. However, a
o It is not clear how this will affect the process. The other design/build group is still moving forward.
o The next design review meeting is planned for December 2007.
Discussion followed:
· Dale – what ever happened to the comments that the UNOLS group recommended to NSF/PEO-Ships regarding science outfitting. Dan Rolland – everything was inserted.
· Dale – The UNOLS comments were general and should be applicable to future vessels.
· Marc Willis – He incorporated them into the ARRV design. Annette – they were also considered in the recent FIC update of the Ocean Class SMRs.
· Mike – Should these be in all SMRs? Stewart – These are more like a set of guidelines.
Action Item – Post the SOR comments and
recommendations as general guidelines for future ship design efforts (Office)
Any concerns or questions regarding the Regional
Class acquisition can be directed to Stewart.
R/V Marcus G. Langseth Conversion Update – Annette provided the report for Al Walsh who is with the ship as it undergoes the NSF inspection. Slides are included as Appendix Xa.
A brief project history was provided:
They have had delays of many kinds; some designed, some mistakes, some even now seem to have been inevitable. Recently they have had considerable progress:
· USCG certification in Oct 07
· ABS certification in Oct 07
· Multibeam Acceptance in Oct 07
· DP Acceptance in Sept 07
The USCG process of reflagging
was very difficult and ABS certification very time consuming. The multibeam was accepted just recently
after long process. The multibeam system
(EM120
1º x 1º) pod was designed, built, and installed in 2006. A test area,
During the Dynamic Positioning acceptance tests, the system preformed well and modeling was accurate. The ship was able to perform station keeping in all positions in the mild conditions encountered (Wind = 15 knots).
The ship conversion items that still need to be addressed include:
· NSF ship inspection Nov 7 and 8
· UNOLS vessel designation. UNOLS is poised to make the designation as soon as notification is received on the successful completion of reflagging and inspections.
· Title Transfer to NSF immediately thereafter.
Shakedown and Calibration cruises will begin on Nov 16th and run through January 8th. The shakedown includes time to learn handling of 3D MCS gear which is big and spread far from the ship. The Langseth’s science equipment value exceeds that of the ship.
Operating funds are critical, but even more critical and difficult is finding and keeping TECHNICIANS.
Ocean Class Acquisition – Bob Houtman (ONR) reported on the Navy’s Ocean Class acquisition effort.
· The Navy still has funds in their plans to acquire two Ocean Class ships and hopefully the funds will stay in the budget through POM 10 (next cycle).
· Within the Navy structure, there is an opportunity to take money out of the budget. POM10 is very important.
· $185M is budget for the two ships.
· Plans call for the Navy to start construction of the first ship in FY11 and the second in FY12. In the meantime, they are using RTD&E funds to support PEO-Ship’s efforts in the acquisition preparation work for the review cycles.
· There are three different organizations within Navy involved with the project (ONR, Oceanographer, PEO-Ships)
· In FY08 focus is to finalize the Ocean Class ships requirements documents. PEO-Ships will develop notional designs.
· The process will likely be similar to the Regional Class process. They will seek UNOLS input. It is important for the details to get documented.
· Bob presented the notional schedule. (Appendix X.b.)
· Earlier in the year FIC reviewed the Ocean Class SMRs at ONR's request and updated them.
· Mary-Lynn Dickson asked - Where does the operator selection fit in? Bob – purposely left out of the schedule slide. They are leaning towards putting out the solicitation for both operators at the same time. They would like the two ships to look as much alike as possible.
· Dan Rolland presented the Ocean Class performance parameters (Appendix X.b)
· The performance parameters are based on the SMRs – in all cases they at least met or exceeded the SMRs for now. Now they will start creating notional designs and tradeoff studies to see if the objectives can be met. The budget is fixed.
· The ship will be a monohull vessel
· The size: About 2500 tons, 230-ft LOA – estimated, but will determine if this can be afforded.
· The goal is to meet the SMRs and initially they feel that this will be positive.
· Trade-off studies to consider are:
- Multibeam sonar – 1x1 system goal. They will look at configurations – hull mounted or gondola.
- DP systems – what is reasonable to expect?
- Handling system
- ICES
- Science complement: 20-25
· These results will go into the specifications document, which are the detailed requirements that designs will be based on.
· Dale – Is $185 total cost? Bob – Yes – management, outfitting, etc. This is why the trade-offs are so important.
· Dan – They will design a ship that can accept the systems that we want.
· Dale – It is important that the shipyard does not select the equipment.
Post Cruise Assessment (PCA) Subcommittee Report – Mary-Lynn Dickson reported that not much more to report since last year’s meeting. The PCA Subcommittee final report is posted <Final Report, UNOLS PCA Subcommittee, 2004-2006> and was presented to the Council in March. Mary-Lynn’s slides are included as Appendix XI.
A new subcommittee has been formed and includes Bob Collier (Chair), Mary Jane Perry, Matt Hawkins, and Mary-Lynn.
Discussion:
·
· Mehgan Donahoe – The SIO marine technicians fill out a report, but not that PCA. She thinks it would be good for the marine techs to complete the form.
· Prince – Institutions have their own internal policies associated with post cruise assessment. Distribution of the UNOLS PCA is controlled by each institution. Within NSF all reports go to Linda Goad, at ONR reports goes to Bob Houtman, and at NOAA reports go to Beth White. In turn they distribute internally.
· Dave Fisichella – At WHOI, the techs send in a separate detailed report following a cruise.
·
Question - Why is it important for
techs to submit the PCA?
· Dale – the PCAs expose issues so that they can be discussed and addressed.
· Comment - Some of the meeting participants expressed that having the exact same PCA form for Techs, science, and captains is good because it provides a method for comparison.
· Bob Houtman – he finds the PCA reports useful.
· Willis – What is the purpose of the PCA? It should be to ferret out problems with the ships and operations.
·
· Willis – Expressed frustration that nothing happens when a Tech submits a PCA report with problems about a science party.
· Stewart echoed Marc’s comments. If nothing is ever going to change regarding retribution, it doesn’t seem worth while to fill out the report.
· Prince – How can we follow up to determine that the PCAs are being used in an effective way?
· Tom Wilson provided a few closing remarks on how to increase PCA response from Marine Techs:
o Managers should stand up for their Tech groups
o Encourage and direct the marine techs to submit the PCAs.
o Encourage constructive input.
o Make suggestions on how the cruise could be better.
RF Frequency
Spectrum Management Committee Status Report – Richard Perry gave the status
report. His slides are in Appendix
XII.
The RF Spectrum Committee members are Steve Hartz, Toby Martin, and Richard Perry (Chair). Their directives are:
· Continue their efforts.
· Provide RF Survey results to Otis Brown at The University of Miami (CORF)
· Look for ways to elicit response from a wider portion of the Oceanographic Community
· A requirement was passed on through UNOLS is to provide a community wide survey of RF use to the Us Dept. of Commerce in November of this year,
Survey Results – So far, 26 types of service were documented. There were ten original survey respondents with two additional survey being received after last year’s meeting. Richard would like to be able to include additional data. He encouraged meeting participants to complete the paper form.
The Survey Report was sent to Otis Brown in August 2007. It turns out that Otis is no longer on CORF.
Ways to expand and increase the response to the survey have been considered. Suggestions included:
· Simplify the Survey
· Remove the questions concerning Number of days / year of use and transmit power.
· Create a separate questionnaire for non shipboard users - buoys etc.
· Provide a hard copy of the survey for key personnel from each of the institutions represented at RVTEC.
· Involve the science user directly.
Richard reported on some future efforts to collect data:
· Contact the Buoy Workshop Committee and ask that the RF Survey be distributed as a handout to attendees at their next meeting in March 2008.
· Request information on RF use earlier in the ‘science process.
We need to insist on disclosure of the types RF use required for science programs and whether or not there exists a requirement for equipment or operator licensees. Potential methods for accomplishing this:
· As part of the proposal process.
· As part of the UNOLS ship scheduling process.
· As part of the pre-cruise questionnaire or planning meeting.
Discussion:
· The subcommittee was asked to continue for another year.
· Mike Prince – reports should go to CORF and Tom Gergley (NSF)
· Dale – We need to contact people directly. You can search Fastlane to find out people who use the RF. Then call them.
· Mike Prince – UNOLS started the process of surveying RF spectrum use with RVTEC – how it gets expanded is yet to be decided.
Lunch Break
UNOLS Report - Marcia McNutt (UNOLS Chair) provided the report. Her slides are in Appendix XIII. She is relieved to know that the Consortium for Ocean Leadership will be addressing Oceanographic Facilities. Ocean Leadership is the new organization of the merged CORE and JOI. It looks like we are heading for a train wreck. Ships are getting old at the same time new initiatives that will need ships are moving forward (ocean observatories). We need new ships. Marcia discussed UNOLS goals, activities and issues:
UNOLS Goals for 2008:
· Enlarge the group of supporters for the UNOLS fleet both in terms of capitalization and operations. We are in danger of becoming a fleet that is dependent on the rise and fall of NSF. We need to expand out to other supporters.
· Extend our planning horizon to ensure that we are building a UNOLS fleet that really meets what the infrastructure needs will be for ocean sciences in the coming decades.
· Continuously work to lower barriers to effective use of UNOLS ships caused by disabilities, gender, or other special situations.
Operating the UNOLS Fleet: 2008 Ship Scheduling and Challenges - In 2008, operations face a deficit of ~$10M. Agency reps, UNOLS, and schedulers are working on solutions. The deficit is due to:
• Overall higher costs (fuel, SOLAS, Homeland Security, etc.)
• Fewer agencies supporting fleet operations at historical levels
• Although ship demand remains high, budget constraints and higher costs result in fewer funded ship days. 2008 Ship Schedules are weak.
UNOLS Fleet Renewal: By 2020 will have fewer ships then that we have now.
Equal Access at Sea:
·
We are making progress in
·
· ADA Guidelines for Research Vessels have been drafted and are in review.
· Evidence suggests that we still need to increase awareness on what actions constitute sexual harassment and the negative consequences of such behavior on UNOLS vessels.
· UNOLS is exploring training resources.
Other important activities, accomplishments, and issues are listed in the slides.
Discussion:
· Bruce Applegate – What is being done on Crew and marine tech retention and hiring. Marcia – The Council will be looking to RVTEC and RVOC for suggestions. The topic generated much discussion at the Council meeting. The Council is poised to respond to RVOC/RVTEC’s recommendations.
· Annette – What will Ocean Leadership consider in terms of future facilities – just Academic Fleet – or more broad? Marcia – It will be based on community needs and priorities, so it would be broader than just the academic fleet – icebreakers, satellites.
Open
Discussion: - UNOLS Council – What is it and how do they help us? Bill Martin shared his thoughts on his
experiences with the UNOLS Council. His
message that discusses the Council and RVTEC’s respective roles is included as Appendix
XIV.
Discussion followed:
· Rich Findley – he supports Bill and his role in championing RVTEC issues.
· Dale – The community (Council) isn’t going to respond to a concern from the RVTEC with a solution that they don’t like. You have to go to them with an executable plan that is feasible.
· Bill – RVTEC needs to be more responsive to all issues. When a question goes out about equipment, electronics, there is a huge outpouring. RVTEC has to also express interest in all issues, including policy.
·
· Mike Prince – The model used for addressing the issue of technician retention and hiring is the one to use.
· Tom Wilson – is RVTEC helping? Yes – the networking is working and is of great value. Are we reaching the agencies? – they are well represented at the meeting – so hopefully they are listening. As for the Council, present them with something that they will say yes to.
· Bill – We should continue to present the Council with our issues, but we should better communicate our needs.
· Mike Prince – He feels that this group has done a great job.
Marine Technician and Crew Retention Issues – Stewart Lamerdin presented the slides that Matt provided to the Council (Appendix XV).
· On July 12th there a UNOLS Council phone meeting that included a report by Matt on this issue.
· A letter from Matt, Bill, Stewart, and Pete was sent to the Council and is posted as Appendix VII of the July Council minutes.
· We understand that the solution can’t be to just recommend more money.
· The salary survey is part of the effort to address the issue.
· We understand…
o It is a highly complex issue
o There’s only so much funding available – must work within current budget constraints.
o We don’t want individuals solely motivated by pay BUT don’t want to settle for the “dregs” from other industries either.
o
It is a multi-dimensional problem requiring a multi-dimensional solution.
o Industry is better equipped to respond to market forces...but, we still have to compete and provide quality service.
o Quality Service = Finding and maintaining “Top Notch” personnel.
What are we doing about it?
· Gathering information and hard data.
· Developing tangible and realistic solutions.
Collect data will help to:
· Illustrate the severity of problem
· Provide justification for changes in short-term spending priorities and policies.
· Provide justification for long-term funding increases
A comprehensive salary survey will be conducted and will include all classes, crew and techs, and current industry figures. The survey will be coordinated through UNOLS Office.
Possible solutions include:
· Investing in people vs. investing in equipment.
· Develop a more formalized sharing/management of relief personnel.
· Promote the UNOLS fleet.
· Reduce other operating costs through regulatory relief.
Discussion followed:
· Rich Findley – We should also be getting input on tech manager salaries.
· We need hard data on the difference between industry and us.
·
· Stewart – part of the motivation of this effort is to determine what is working best.
· Richard Perry – should we be grouped with RVOC – why? Mike – The larger group brings more clout.
· Jim Holik – “you grow Techs.” There are other things besides just money, encourage training.
· Stewart – We are looking for creative solutions.
· Lani Clough – What percentage of the group is not having a problem? 0%.
· Mary-Lynn Dickson – What industries are you going to? Stewart – there are a few that they are approaching includin MBARI.
· Mike – What other industries should be looked at? Oil industry.
· Rich Findley – There is a difference between crew and marine techs? The crew has job specifics. The marine techs do everything. The tech can go ashore and get a job anywhere. We are competing with a whole different group than just the crew. Marine techs can go anywhere – sea or shore.
· Meghan Donohoe – Techs are often overworked, poorly managed, training is inadequate, and they are treated poorly by science parties. The RVTEC group is not going to the science fairs – they need to go out and advertise.
· Stewart encouraged everyone to provide this sort of information.
· Rich Findley – Can we set up the wiki’s for this dialog. Dale volunteered to set one up.
· Bill – He asked if there should be a membership change for this subcommittee– They will revisit this later in the meeting.
Break
ACT
Program –
ACT is a NOAA funded project. The program was initiated in 2000. ACT Services provide an information clearinghouse. They hold workshops. ACT priorities are to:
- transition emerging technologies to operational use rapidly and effectively
- Maintain a dialogue among technology users, developers, and providers.
- Identify technology needs and novel technologies
- Document technology performance
The ACT headquarters is located at UMCES/CBL. There are eight partner institutions with expertise in coastal technology that are distributed around the country. Their technical evaluations include performance verification and performance demonstration. The purpose is to document performance under third party tests. They do not provide certifications, recommendations, or direct comparisons. They can’t do this since they are NOAA.
Their program is voluntary and they don’t exclude anyone. ACT will put out a request for technologies. The program is free, except the vendor must provide the unit and shipping cost if possible. Moored test beds are typically used for testing to keep costs down (ship time is too expensive). Jason reviewed the Technology Evaluation Themes from 2004 to 2008.
Some of the outcomes of the ACT technology workshops include:
- altered the way data is collected
- altered technology designs
- generated funding opportunities
- Helped focus other ACI activities.
For additional information about ACT, visit www.act-us.info.
MBARI AUV – An overview of MBARI’s mapping vehicle – Doug Conlin provided a presentation on MBARI’s AUVs. His slides are included as Appendix XVII. MBARI operates two Dorado Class vehicles, a CTD Vehicle, and a Mapping Vehicle. One additional “mothballed” vehicle is available. It was previously used as the AUV docking test vehicle.
The Dorado Class AUV specifications are:
· 21 inch diameter
· Length varies from 12 to 21 feet.
· Modular design
· Free flooded fairing
· Electronics are in discrete pressure housings
· Main vehicle computer (MVC) is housed in a 17” glass sphere
· Ducted tailcone for propulsion and steering
· Lithium ion or polymer rechargeable batteries
· Communication is via Freewave Ethernet link at surface (57kbps).
· Iridium telemetry capabilities (Short Burst Data)
· Ashtech DG16 GPS Receiver
· RD Instruments 300kHz Workhorse Navigator DVL
· Sonardyne USBL Transceiver for vehicle tracking.
· Strobe, RDF, Argos PTT, Homer beacon.
· Emergency dropweight (10 or 20 pounds).
· Benthos LF Acoustic Modem on Mapping Vehicle for subsea communication and position updates. (Model ATM-891, 8-15kHz)
· Speed capabilities are from 2-4 knots.
· Turning radius of < 10 meters.
· Max dive rate is 30 meters/min.
· CTD vehicle depth limited to 300m because of optical instrumentation. Core components able to operate to 4000m.
· Mapping vehicle depth rated to 6000m.
· Able to operate on a variety of ships using various launch and recovery methods.
Doug described the following system components (see slides for details):
· Main Vehicle Computer (MVC)
· Tailcone Assembly
·
MAUV
· Vehicle Tethers
· Design Tools
The AUVs have been operated off of the following vessels using various launch and recovery mechanisms: Zephyr, Western Flyer, Spare Rhib (22-ft), Point Sur, Shana Rae (52ft. Fishing vessel), Sproul, Thompson, Atlantis, and Healy.
The D. Allen B Mapping AUV and its systems were described. The system is surface-aided during descent. The ship can perform other functions after touchdown. It has an 18 hour endurance/36 km2 coverage.
The CTD AUV is MBARI’s “workhorse” AUV. It performed ~3000km of UNATTENDED surveys in 2006. It has an endurance of up to 22 hours (on 6kWhr) with a turn around time of ~6 hours.
Doug Reviewed the lessons learned and on-going AUV work. He provided a list of mapping missions to date that have been carried out.
MBARI ROV – Dale Graves reported on the MBARI ROV. His slides are included as Appendix XVIII. The new ROV (Tiburon II) comes online next year. The vehicle’s current and future tasks include:
· Ocean experimentation and sampling - Instrument deployment and Sample collection (mid-water and benthic habitats)
· Ocean observatory support - Cable installation and Sensor deployment & recovery
· Platform for research & design
· High resolution imaging
· HDTV video, digital stills
· Ocean exploration
· Education & outreach
Project status was reviewed. The scheduled sea trials date is September 2008.
The new ROV will prove a significant increase in payload, thrust and power. It is easier to maintain and easier to interface with new instrumentation. The new ROV will have a better capability to adapt to future requirements (bandwidth, power and payload). The general specifications include:
· 4,000 meter depth rating
· 600 lbs (in water) science payload
· Add on Tool skids
· Dedicated support ship (Western Flyer)
· Vehicle weight < 5,040 kg (11,100 lbs)
· 75 shp hydraulic system
Dale reviewed the custom requirements and science tools (see slides). To support the new ROV, the crane on Western Flyer required an upgrade. New vehicle, plus crane, and umbilical is about $4M.
Ship and
Facility
Wednesday November 7th - Casa Munras Hotel in the Casa Munras Conference Room
Call Day 2 to
Order and Announcements:
2008 Meeting
Location –
Bill encouraged institution reps to submit the RF Survey form.
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Update – Bill Martin provided the TWIC update. His slides are included as Appendix XX. Congress, through the Maritime Transportation Security Act, or MTSA, directed the federal government to issue a biometric transportation security credential to any individual with unescorted access to secure areas of facilities and vessels and all mariners holding Coast Guard issued credentials or qualification documents.
TWIC is a common identification credential for all personnel requiring unescorted access to secure areas of MTSA-regulated facilities and vessels, and all mariners holding Coast Guard-issued credentials. TSA will issue workers a tamper-resistant “Smart Card” containing the worker’s biometric (fingerprint template) to allow for a positive link between the card itself and the individual.
An estimated 750,000 individuals will be required to obtain a TWIC. This includes Coast Guard-credentialed merchant mariners, port facility employees, longshoremen, truck drivers, and others requiring unescorted access to secure areas of maritime facilities and vessels. If Marine Technicians want to go to and from the ship at a secure facility, unescorted, they will need to have a TWIC card. If Science Personnel want to get to the ship in a secure facility, they must have a TWIC card or be escorted.
Bill suggests that all Marine Technicians get a TWIC card in order to come and go on our ships whenever we want. Unless the Scientists have a TWIC cards, they would need to be escorted to and from the ship at secure facilities.
Bill asked RVTEC is he should make a suggestion to the UNOLS Council regarding science personnel requirements for TWIC cards?
Discussion:
· There was a lot of concern expressed that marine techs might have to escort science party members (who don’t have TWIC cards).
· Bill suggested that all Chief scientists get TWIC cards.
·
· Bill – this should be included in pre-cruise planning documents and discussions.
·
Matt Hawkins – There was a
discussion at the RVOC meeting on this topic.
They are trying to get a fleetwide exemption. This is only a
· Stewart asked how this would apply to a shipyard. Tiffani - The shipyard would have their own plan and would probably provide escorts.
· The cost for a TWIC card is $195 for 5 years.
Action Item:
- Encourage all Marine Technicians to get TWIC cards. (RVTEC)
- Send recommendation to Council that all Chief scientists get TWIC cards. Bill will discuss the issue with the RVOC Chair.
Report from MATE – Lani Clough provided an overview of the MATE Internship Program. Her slides are included as Appendix XXI. Since 1999, 194 community college and university students have been placed in research vessels, labs and industry settings (107 supported UNOLS vessels). Lani reviewed the process used to place interns with UNOLS (see slide). The program successes are highlighted in the slides.
Informal feedback from mentors on experiences with interns was collected to determine ways to improve the program. The following concerns have arisen:
· Few MATE interns apply for positions on UNOLS vessels after their internships
· Some student interns are more interested in working in science or with ROVs than working as marine technicians
· Many student interns do not understand the nature of marine technician work before they participate in the internship
· Students need a better understanding of equipment before they sail on the vessels.
Some possible solutions to these concerns include:
· Recruit more heavily at MATE partner colleges with strong marine technical programs
· Focus recruitment on students near graduation and recent graduates
· Enhance student screening by revising the internship application to include career goals and quiz on common equipment and marine technician job duties
· Revise internship recruitment materials and the web site to reflect technology and the emphasis on technician positions
· Advise MATE partner faculty in best practices for supporting their students.
MATE will work to improve the quality of information potential interns receive from MATE by providing more detailed information about marine technician careers on MATE’s web site. For example:
· MATE’s Marine technician knowledge and skills guidelines (KSG)
· Examples of past internship tasks and host expectations including video interviews with students and mentors
· Provide information on the equipment and vessels for students to study prior to boarding vessels.
A primary
challenge for the
· Mentors phone interview top 2 student applicants
· Mentors provide more detailed information concerning the internship tasks and related technology applications
· Commit to hosting interns earlier in the year so MATE can advertise each internship individually. The best time to find out about internship vessel space is January to March. Two month lead time is desired.
· Encourage marine technicians to use the internship experience to promote marine technician careers
· Create a brochure for marine technician careers within the UNOLS fleet
· Assist MATE partner colleges in updating their curriculum so it is better aligned with UNOLS workforce needs/skill sets
· Mentors should return evaluation sheets.
Dave Forcucci asked it MATE tracks interns after graduation. Lani replied “yes.” MATE hopes to have funding to support 12 interns for 4 weeks each in 2008.
Defined Levels of Technical Services –Annette DeSilva provided an update on the project to publish Technical Services Information (TSI). Slides are included in Appendix XXII. The TSI website is on-line at
<http://unolsweb.cms.udel.edu/STRS/Public/diu_login.aspx>. The TSI outline was created and endorsed by RVTEC a couple years ago. The outline provides a standard format for describing technical services. In 2007 the on-line TSI system was developed by Aaron Payne with design assistance from Laura Dippold. It is now ready for the technical groups to start enter their data.
Annette reviewed the process for getting started. It begins with becoming a member of the UNOLS Ship time Request System (STRS). The system is password protected. Once you are a member, the UNOLS Office can provide authorization for access to the TSI web pages. Once you have authorization, you can enter data and submit it as “public” when ready.
There are separate web pages that the general public will have access to and no login is required. The web site is intended to allow quick access to ship/service information in a standard format. The web page will allow the viewer to see multiple ships side by side
The TSI Outline for Sections: I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII is ready for data entry. Beta testing began in mid Sept with data from URI, WHOI, MLML, OSU, and HBOI. We would like to continue to introduce the system and move forward with development of equipment/instrumentation inventories – Sections II, III.
Technical managers will be contacted with instructions for entering data.
Progress of the
Currently there are 12 research
vessels providing data when at sea. In
FY2007 there were approximately 2 million one-minute records. Shawn showed maps with the SAMOS coverage.
Shawn described the
flow of SAMOS observations. Data is transmitted
from the ship to shore as a once daily email attachment via 24/7 broadband
satellite communication.
Detailed metadata is
collected for all vessels. The current
practice is to collect metadata using Word forms sent via email. This has been a limited success and they are
seeking better automation through either ASCII text documents sent via email at
the start of each cruise or a Web interface that would allow operators to
directly input metadata into the SAMOS ship database. The web approach may offer ease of
implementation.
Next Shawn reviewed
SAMOS data processing. Processing is
automated and combines metadata with daily data received from the vessel. Preliminary
quality evaluation is conducted. Vessel
operators are notified when problems are discovered. Data distribution is via the SAMOS website at
http://samos.coaps.fsu.edu/. Graphical tools
will allow users to search for available data and quality information. There is an agreement in place with NODC
(U.S.) and NCAR for long term archival of all observations. The first annual
Benefits for vessel operators
who participate in SAMOS include routine data quality evaluation by experienced
marine meteorologists, at sea notification of data problems, and near real-time
distribution of science observations.
SAMOS welcomes
additional vessel operators. Only two
WHOI ships participate now. They
anticipate adding eight NOAA ships in 2008.
Instructions on what the operators need to provide is included on the
slides and on the SAMOS page.
The 4th SAMOS Workshop
(Joint with Global Ocean Surface Underway Data project) is planned for summer
2008 and will be hosted by the U.S. Coast Guard in Seattle, WA. All from RVTEC are welcome.
Automated Transfer of Instrument & Vessel Metadata - Survey Report – Shawn Smith reported on the results of the survey. His slides are included as Appendix XXIV.
The purpose of the survey was to understand current metadata practices in use by UNOLS operators. There were eight questions and ten responses were received. Full details are included in the slides.
The survey revealed that there are a wide variety of methods employed for storing metadata. Hard copies of sensor calibrations seem common.
Most metadata is updated by ship technical staff. Documentation is never a high priority or desired task. A key issue is how to ensure metadata are updated on sensor swap or other change (e.g., personnel swap).
A combination of shipboard and shore-side metadata storage existed for all who responded. The data is transferred by a variety of means; manual (hand carry), DVD transfers, and electronic. It is mostly done at home port. Automated transfers require some formal electronic storage of information on shore. Not all institutions use databases or have dedicated digital resources on shore.
Metadata is disseminated to users typically by DVD/CD or on-line. Some restrict access to information. Some institutions also maintain metadata on hard disk onshore, but these are not linked to web or ftp. Many have expressed interest in universal on-line access.
Several survey responses commented that developing a community-wide GUI for the web would be helpful. It was suggested that GUI ties into a Central Metadata Repository with access by ship, cruise, dates, and ocean region.
In summary, the current technology will allow automated metadata transfers. There is a need for a system-wide approach and a central repository would be useful. Recommendations for moving forward:
§ Form a task group to develop prototype web/email collection system and repository
§ Build upon UNOLS efforts to automate cruise metadata collection
§ Ensure system will be accessible to large and small operators
§ This must be a funded task.
§ Must be a UNOLS priority.
Break
World Meteorological Organizations Voluntary Observing Ship
(VOS) program – Robert Luke reported on
VOS. His slides are included in Appendix XXV.
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) recruits ships
to voluntarily observe and report marine meteorological and oceanographic
conditions to ensure the safety of life at sea and reduce commercial loss. Some of the VOS statistics include:
·
~200,000
observations per year
·
~900
ships actively participating
·
~200-250
ships report each day
·
~400-450
ships report weekly
·
$180,000
annual operating budget
The WMO VOS program recruits, supports and provides
training for crewmembers of ships that participate in VOS program as part of
the
The VOS Climate (VOSClim) is an ongoing project that provides
a high-quality subset of marine meteorological data with extensive associated
metadata. The data is available in both
real-time and delayed mode to support global climate studies. This data are invaluable for climate change
studies and research.
Export Controls – Tom Wilson reported on Export
Controls. His slides are included as Appendix
XXVI. An export is “Any oral,
written, electronic or visual disclosure, shipment, transfer, or transmission;
of commodities, technology, information, technical data, assistance, or
software codes; to anyone outside the
The marine technical support groups are
often the ones who are shipping the gear, demonstrating the equipment, or
teaching the science party how to use it. Furthermore, this is often done with
people who are not employees/students of our own institution, and potentially
with visitors or foreign observers.
Tom’s recommendations include:
1.
Be
Proactive.
2.
Discuss
our needs and typical cruise situations.
3.
Generate
hypotheticals; get some regulatory feedback and decisions.
4.
Establish
as many exemptions as possible.
There are some exemptions to export
controls: Public domain exemption, fundamental
research exemption, Education exemption, and Employment exemption. Details and examples of the exemptions are included
in the slides.
Phil McGillivray commented that on the USCG ships they have had to lock
up areas to prevent access to foreign participants. NOAA added that they have had to lock off
areas as well. Richard Perry commented
that there are software products that get into the gray area. There is software that can only be purchased
in the
Tom Wilson volunteered to collect any information that the RVTEC provides on deemed export. He will compile it and get the list out to the group.
HiSeasNet Update – Steve
Foley provided the HiSeasNet update. His
slides are included as Appendix XXVII.
HiSeasNet services include providing satellite bandwidth for
ship-to-shore and shore-to-ship connectivity, hub station connection to
Internet, and ship and shore equipment maintenance two times a year.
The Principal Investigator for HiSeasNet is Dr. Jon Berger,
UCSD/SIO and the engineer is Steve Foley, UCSD/SIO. Help/backup is provided by Geoff Davis and
Brian Battistuz, both UCSD/SIO. There is
a satellite network design and equipment maintenance contract with CommSystems.
In 2007 HiSeasNet was added to four more UNOLS ships: R/V Point Sur, R/V Walton Smith,
R/V Oceanus, and R/V Langseth.
This brings the HiSeasNet Fleet to include the following:
·
C-Band
(2.4m dish, Global coverage): Atlantis,
Kilo Moana, Knorr, Melville, Revelle, Seward Johnson, Thompson, Langseth
·
Ku-Band
(North America coastal coverage): Endeavor
(1.2m), New Horizon (1.2m), Oceanus (1.5m), Pelican (1m),
Point Sur (1m), Walton Smith (1m)
The HiSeasNet Web site is (http://www.hiseasnet.net).
The HiSeasNet antenna size comparisons between the C-Band,
Ku-Band and small KuBand are shown in the slides. Maps showing the coverage in the Pacific, Atlantic/Eastern
Pacific, and
HiSeasNet equipment support and maintenance is contracted
to CommSystems. The HiSeasNet staff authorizes what resources are used and
when. Maintenance is done roughly every
6 months. They try to perform
maintenance during combined visits or do them in
Most HiSeasNet problems are user or ship related. These can be a result of power outages,
antenna repoints, gyro failure, unfamiliarity with gear, etc. RF gear failures are a major cause of ship
outages. A solution is to have the RF
spares and antenna spares on board.
SeaTel has released a DacRemotePanel. It runs under Windows across a serial or IP
connection to an antenna controller. It
provides extra diagnostic plots, debug data dumps, and visibility into the
pedestal control unit.
Steve discussed the problem of satellite shadowing. Shadowing is caused when a mast, stack,
stairway, etc. is between the antenna and the satellite. The ensuing outage from being on a “bad
heading” for extended tracks is frustrating for science and crew. Options for resolving this include moving the
antenna higher than anything else, buy a second antenna for each ship, move the
antenna between two positions, or remove obstructions. Some of these options are expensive to
implement.
Future work includes bringing a few more ships online and possibly
expanding Ku-band carriers to cover more of POR. They will work on a training
program if there is interest. More
documentation, troubleshooting guides, etc. will be developed and they will continue
routine maintenance/upgrades of all equipment.
Discussion followed:
·
Bill Martin
asked if the shadowing problem went away on Revelle after the antennae was
raised. Steve – The connection was a bit
better.
·
·
Rich
Findley asked about licensing? Steve
replied that they would like to get a fleet-wide Earth Station license. However, it is a year-long wait. If successful, the whole fleet would be
covered and a paper copy of the license could be sent to each ship.
·
Tim McGovern
asked if there is any chance of expanding bandwidth. Steve replied that it would require funding.
·
Bill
Martin said that he would respond to Marcia McNutt about the antenna shadowing
issue.
Various ship
configurations utilizing C-Band and Ku-Band HiSeasNet Systems:
SIO Configuration
– Steve Foley presented the SIO HiSeasNet
configuration. His slides are available
in Appendix XXVIII. The
services provided include mail for all, DNS for all, Web for some, VoIP, Instant
Messaging, bulk transfer onto ship (via FTP proxy and reconnecting downloader),
bulk transfer off of ship (URLFetch), bulk Ship-To-Shore (URLFetch) [if ship
goes offline, then back online, shore picks up stalled transfer], and bulk
Shore-To-Ship.
WHOI HiSeasNet Configuration – Dave Fisichella reported that the Ku-band HiSeasNet was
installed on Oceanus and connected to HiSeasNet on March 27, 2007. The hardware costs were shared by NSF (75%)
and ONR (25%). Regional satellite
signals provide continuous high-speed data transfer in coverage areas. They
used the SES Blue Sky. The concern with
this approach was that you don’t get to experiment with it while at home. You have to wait until you are in the service
area before you can try it out (Oceanus was in the
Science Network on Ice Breaker Healy - James Wilson, U. S. Coast Guard, provided the report on
the Healy Satellite Connectivity at Sea.
His slides are included as Appendix XXX. Their science network provides access to a Window
server and has Windows and Mac workstations.
Personal laptops can also connect to the network. Internet access is provided by INMARSAT 24/ 7
in low latitudes and IRIDIUM e-mail 24/7 in low and high latitudes but no internet. The INMARSAT B system includes two antennas
and offers 64K for the science network and 64K for the Coast Guard network. It covers all of
The INMARSAT is a Navy leased line and uses military satellites. The IRIDIUM SIMS was purchased by the Coast
Guard and there is no air time cost.
R/V Thompson HiSeasNet Installation & Access
Control – Bill Martin reported on UW’s
system. His slides are included as Appendix
XXXI. The slides include images
of the system components. John Delaney
cruise on Thompson included a real-time feed. John paid for the extra satellite time.
Tim did
some speed comparisons using a web-based Bandwidth Meter Test available through
CNet, and found that while speeds are significantly reduced as compared to
shore-side internet, overall it is sufficient for general internet work with a
moderate number of users.
For
each cruise, three IP addresses are provided to the chief scientist. Wireless
routers allow a much larger pool of scientists and crew to access the internet,
and only then have they noticed a slow-down. Typically that would involve
numbers as high as 12-15 people on the internet at any one time. There are two
public computers in the library with off-ship internet access, available to
crew and science. Additionally, the captain, chief mate and engineer, and the
bridge computer all have internet access. Skype and instant messaging on the
public computers is not allowed, but they haven’t restricted access on the
other computers – mostly because it is impossible to enforce.
HiSeasNet Install Onboard R/V Point Sur - Ben Jokinen thanked HiSeasNet for the help installing and
providing coverage in the
Bill Martin recommended that there be a HiSeasNet user session before or after next year’s meeting.
Lunch Break
NOAA VSAT Implementation - Gene Nelson reported on NOAA’s VSAT. His slides are included as Appendix XXXIV. This is an update of the 2006 presentation by Doug Perry at the RVTEC meeting. One of the goals of the VSAT project are to provide a secure 24/7 WAN connection between deployed ship networks & NOAA’s Trusted Campus Network.
There is a T1 WAN connection from
the Earth-station/Gateway to
In FY04 the NOAA fleet wide Inmarsat cost was $330K. The VSAT Acquisition/Implementation was $80K to $250K per vessel in FY07. The bandwidth cost per vessel per month is less than $3K for Ku-band and $4K for C-band. The annual maintenance per vessel is about $2K + travel. The benefits offered by VSAT are that the ships at sea are always connected and in turn there is safer and more effective operations and improved morale. The slides include a table showing the cost estimate by year from FY05 to FY08 for bandwidth and equipment.
The NOAA Fleet VSAT configuration was described. Coastal ships in the Ku-band footprint utilize 1.0, 1.2 and 1.5 meter dishes. Global & Deep ocean ships utilize 2.4 meter Cu-band dishes. Okeanos Explorer will utilize a 3.7 meter dish for live television broadcast. Gene reviewed the Ku-Band and C-Band system selections and implementation strategy (details are in slides). The Oscar Elton Sette installation was described.
Gene provided some operational notes regarding the system. Two of the three Orbit systems failed out of the box or soon after installation. Six field service trips were required to the Miller Freeman & Oscar Dyson in five months. Spares availability is an issue. The SeaTel 9797 is rock solid. Bandwidth usage is adequate for ship use, but NOAA programs are interested in increased data rates.
Gene reported that NOAA asks all users to sign an internet policy that they agree to no VoIP, no Skype, and no downloads.
Wire and
Cable Subcommittee Report – Rich
Findley provided the subcommittee report.
His slides are included as Appendix XXXV. Rich reviewed basic wire characteristics. Tables comparing the various characteristics
of different wires are included in the slides.
Next Rich reviewed the history since 1999 of the various wire and cable
symposiums, requirement development efforts, workshops, and the recent safe
working load (SWL) standards. A summary
of excerpts from the 1999 wire and cable symposium are included in Rich’s
slides along with the symposium recommendations. Rich also reviewed the recommendations from a
2004 report on Draft Functional
Requirements for a Potential New Generation Standard UNOLS Small Diameter Electro-Mechanical
(EM) or Electro-Optical-Mechanical (EOM) Cable.
Rich said that we need to figure out how we can get this moving along. There are more and more heavier packages going over the side. People are using the cables to their legal limit. The wires are being stretched.
Mike Prince commented that Rich’s tables show characteristics for new cables. The numbers would be lower with older, used cables. A solution perhaps should be centered on proper monitoring of the wire.
A first step in engineering a new wire is establishing the SWL.
New UNOLS Wire SWL Standards Update – Matt Hawkins reported on the New Wire SWL Standards. His slides are included as Appendix XXXVI. The SWL standard is modeled after the UK standard. It allows more operational flexibility and allows a lower Factor of Safety (FS). The operator chooses the desired FS to use based on existing monitoring equipment and the handling system design monitoring system, operational science characteristics, and the capabilities of ship and personnel. The lower the FS you choose the more you need, and the more you have to do. FS < 2.5 need stringent requirements (10 Hz monitoring).
A new Appendix A has been added to the Research Vessel Safety Standards (RVSS). Appendix A is the only document in the RVSS that requires minimum sheave diameters and grooving details, monitoring systems, winch operator training and safety procedures, and routine cable testing. The SWL standards are in final community review.
Matt reviewed the SWL Table, using Sharp as an example.
Break
Guest Speaker – Mr. Phil Gibson, President, Tension Member Technology Laboratories provided a talk on wires and cables. His slides include cable specs, tables, and images are included as Appendix XXXVII. Phil provided information on the .322 cable. He discussed torque balancing: elongation vs. tension, the effect of compressibility, elongation vs. pressure and the effects of hydrostatic pressure on elongation.
Synthetic cables were discussed. With synthetics, the outside doesn’t want to bend, but the inside – the core will go into compression. This could happen by putting a cable on a sheave that is too small. There are pitfalls with the synthetic wires that you have to be aware of.
Phil is beginning a cable test program for Rick Trask. He showed pictures of the test equipment. They will look at the residual breaking strength. The tests run for 1,000,000,000 cycles and can take 11 days.
Phil said that sheaves all count, but the wrap angles don’t matter as long as they are more than half a lay length. The sheaves need to match the wire diameter. The sheaves should not be too close together. Outer wires see the least amount of curvature. Rollers are a cable eater.
Phil was asked to comment on EM cable lubrication. Phil – A non-lubricated cable will corkscrew.
Sandy Shor asked what is the best way to improve on the cables we are using now. Phil responded by indicating that three conductors in the wire may be excessive. The wire has redundancy built in, but it may not be needed. Rich added that it is best to stay at same diameter, but perhaps go down to one conductor.
Rich asked how much does it cost to design a new cable. Phil – If you stay with same diameter, and go to one conductor, vendors can be creative.
Phil cautioned about using a low FS. It is complex because the cables degrade with strength.
Break
Reflections and Looking Forward - Sandy Shor and Jim
Holik – Sandy provided some reflections on his experiences at NSF in the
Technical Support Program:
· The budget is bad and ship schedules for 2008 still have not been posted.
· The Technical Support Program funds the basic services rates and the other half of the budget is for special services.
· We are at critical level in terms of technical staff level.
· Specialized services are going to squeeze the budget because of the new ship, Langseth, coming on line.
· Mitigation on Marine Mammals permitting is coming at a cost, $.5 to $1M
· Long coring support is ~ $1M
· Multibeam and HiSeasNet are about $1M and are part of the basic rate.
Jim Holik remarked that technical services are important to him and he is excited to oversee the program at NSF.
Adjourn Day Two
Thursday November 8th - Casa Munras Hotel in the Casa Munras Conference Room
Vice-Chair Nominations – Stewart Lamerdon was nominated for re-election as RVTEC Vice-Chair. There were no other nominations. The members voted to reelect Stewart as Vice-Chair.
Determine Host Institution for 2008 RVTEC – Shawn Smith and Rich Findley offered to host the 2008 meeting. Details will be worked out.
Show & Tell Presentations:
NSF Group Purchase – There was a presentation on the Knudsen Engineering new echosounder. His slides are included in Appendix XXXVIII.
The Knudsen Chirp 320BR is
the workhorse for the UNOLS Fleet. There
are 30 units spread over 16 UNOLS organizations. The first units were introduced to the Fleet
in 1996. We are now experiencing part obsolescence.
Nolan discussed the next
generation product strategy. There are
two products, the sounder series for general purpose shallow water applications
and the chirp series for deep water, sub bottom applications. He suggests introducing both series with 16 bit processor. Images of the various units as well as a system
comparison table of the 320BR Series versus the Chirp 3260 Series is included
in the slides. The Chirp 3260 new 5509
module replaces both MPM and SPM modules used in 320BR; there is one less
module to deal with. The Chirp 3260 pick-up modules offer lower noise, lower
losses, and added protection circuitry.
Other benefits offered by the Chirp 3260 system components are included
in the slides. Photos of the Chirp 3260 physical configuration front panel
and internal layout are displayed.
Details of the Chirp 3260 software are described. Examples of the data taken from a Chirp 3260
@ 3.5 kHz are included in the slides.
The Chirp 3260 new features and options include an optional KEL
USB printer (available in future) and an optional simulator box.
The UNOLS group purchase is for an