Click for next page ( 73


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 72
4 Implementation of a Network of Ocean Observatories for Research Many issues, some of them complex, must be addressed for the suc- cessful implementation of a seafloor observatory network for research. The following sections address many of these issues, including program management, infrastructure and sensor needs, factors affecting construc- tion and installation, operations and maintenance, data management, and education and outreach. It is beyond the scope of this report to develop a comprehensive implementation plan for ocean observatories; instead, the goal of this chapter is to highlight some of the most important issues to be addressed in such a plan. The first task of the observatory management organization described below, should be the development of a detailed and comprehensive project implementation plan for each of the three major components of the OOI and the review of these plans by knowl- edgeable and independent experts. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT Even though the formal start of the OOI is not planned until FY 2006, a large amount of work must be done during the intervening years in- cluding detailed (node level) scientific planning, technical development, and exhaustive testing of critical observatory sub-systems. These activi- ties will ensure that (1) the risks associated with the construction and installation of the more advanced observatory systems are minimized, (2) the initial science experiments at individual nodes are identified so as to provide an opportunity for an early scientific payoff once the observato- 72

OCR for page 72
/MPLEMENTAT/ON OF A NETWORK OF OCEAN OBSERVATORIES FOR RESEARCH 73 ries are in place, and (3) research scientists, educators, and the public have ready access to the data generated. For this reason, a management struc- ture should be established as soon as possible, and in any case well before the initiation of the OOI. Goals of the Management Structure The development of a network of ocean research observatories will require a large initial investment in excess of $200 million (National Sci- ence Foundation, 2002~. For this reason alone, the management system will be under intense scrutiny by Congress, NSF senior management, the U.S. Inspector General, and the marine science community (which has concerns about other programs being cut to cover observatory cost over- runs), as well as international partners, who must satisfy the concerns of their own funding agencies. Therefore, the first tasks of the management structure should be to: develop a detailed implementation plan for the OOI; generate defendable cost estimates; put in place oversight mechanisms and fiscal controls to ensure that implementation tasks are completed on time and within budget; establish a scientific and technical advisory structure to obtain com- munity input; and work collaboratively with international partners to seamlessly in- tegrate complementary international activities. Design, Construction, and Installation Phase With respect to scientific planning and observatory installation, the management structure would oversee the following: defining science-based performance goals (based on broad com- munity input); producing an annual program plan and budget; overseeing design, development and manufacture of observatory components and selecting contractors for those tasks; selecting contractors for installation of observatory systems; providing experienced oversight of contractors; managing liability issues; facilitating the development and implementation of standards (e.g., for user power; communications, and timing interfaces; metadata require- ments; system, sub-system and component reliability; and information management and archiving);

OCR for page 72
74 ENABLING OCEAN RESEARCH IN THE 2 lST CENTURY facilitating seamless system integration; ensuring comparability and inter-calibration of observations made by the OOI; and ensuring that the scientific and technical components of interna- tional collaborations are coordinated effectively. Operations Phase As observatories become operational, the management structure must take on these additional tasks: selecting observatory operators and putting in place appropriate review procedures; gets; tently; ensuring that the observatory infrastructure supports the highest quality science and provides researchers with the best available technol- ogy; including calibrated sensors and instrumentation, at the lowest cost consistent with the safe, efficient operation of the facility; establishing an appropriate budgetary balance between observa- tory operations and maintenance and enhancements to observatory infra- structure; and ensuring the program has a strong and innovative education and outreach program. managing the operations, maintenance and administration bud- ensuring that access to observatories is dealt with fairly and consis- The Driving Philosophy The philosophy of the OOI management structure should be one in which the day-to-day operation of different components is the responsi- bility of entities (academic or commercial) with appropriate scientific and technical expertise. The role of the program management organization should be one of coordination, oversight, and fiscal and contract manage- ment. The management structure will need to work with the scientific community to select, support, and periodically evaluate "community" experiments; define access requirements; provide technical support for individual investigator-initiated experiments; facilitate education and out- reach access to selected data streams and products; develop protocols for scientists not involved in deploying experiments to access databases and archives; and negotiate access agreements with other users (such as for- profit entertainment industries and value-added enterprises). Operating rules for the observatories will have to take into account the needs of the

OCR for page 72
/MPLEMENTAT/ON OF A NETWORK OF OCEAN OBSERVATORIES FOR RESEARCH 75 scientific community, agencies interested in using or supporting the use of the facilities; international partners and collaborators, and other users, including the public. Proposed Management Model: Roles and Responsibilities An example of a management structure capable of addressing the goals and issues summarized above is presented in Figure 4-1. This struc- ture is modified from a draft management structure developed by the NSF and the DEOS steering committee and is modeled after the highly successful management structure of the international ODP. The ODP management model guided a complex program now in its fourth decade. It has shown itself to be flexible and capable of evolving in response to changing circumstances, yet stable enough to keep a multina- tional program operating year after year. This model, while an excellent starting point, does not fit the circumstances of the OOI exactly, and so has been modified to reflect the following important differences: While the structure of the ODP often tends toward prescriptive technical requirements, the OOI will need performance-based require- ments, as the OOI will consist of many separate observatories using mul- tiple technologies in pursuit of different objectives. In addition, disparate parts of the system will be in different stages of development at any given time. For the most part, the ODP utilizes standard technology developed for the oil exploration industry. The OOI will be utilizing more advanced technologies adapted specifically for ocean observatories and is likely to place a much greater emphasis on new technology development. As a result, the OOI technical advisory and management structure will need expertise to provide oversight of the operation of technologically sophis- ticated systems and engineering development projects. The NSF is the only agency in the U.S. providing ongoing support for the ODP. It is likely that the OOI will have a number of agency sup- porters at the federal (and possibly even state) level, particularly during the operational phase. Many of these agencies will be interested in sup- porting only a few observatories or a single observatory type. In the ODP, all international operating funds flow through the NSF and are managed as a single commingled pool. International funding for the OOI will mostly occur at the individual observatory level, or for a particular observatory type, and will likely be spent at the national level as part of a coordinated rather than commingled pool. In the ODP, all of the international partners belong to the entire program. In the OOI, international partners may be interested in partici- pating only in a subset of the observatory system.

OCR for page 72
76 u) ~ a, ,. 'O Z Q U) o o LL! U) ~ O Z Z ~ ~ O TIC An ~ .c ~ Z O ZO U) O O o F ~ Q ~ a) Z \ it_ / / / / / / / ~ / a: / a)0_ ~ U) ~ U) o 8 , robs' ~ At\ ~X ~ a: \ ~ \ / ~ U) ~ I . U) o CO Cal U) ~ o o / ~ ~ . U) o O: g CO U) o o .O ~ U) o . CO C~ U) o _ . ............................ ~ --- U) ....... ~ ~ .... ~ ... s o (1) u) / (d o , ~ C 1 \ ~ ~ \ g au v) \ au o au o 5- bC o 5- o o o au 5- v) au bC au v) o o 5-

OCR for page 72
/MPLEMENTAT/ON OF A NETWORK OF OCEAN OBSERVATORIES FOR RESEARCH 77 The NSF will be the lead funding agency for the OOI. Other agencies that fund marine research may elect (and should certainly be encouraged) to support the OOI, but their contributions should be funneled through the NSF to ensure that the program is well coordinated and efficiently managed with clear fiscal accountability. Coordination of the OOI with the IOOS, the COOS, and other na- tional and international observatory programs will be critical in the areas of infrastructure development, instrumentation, ship and ROV utiliza- tion, data management, and technology transfer. The NOPP in its role as a coordinator for federal agencies, academia, and industry, should be utilized to facilitate this organization among the different U.S. agencies supporting observatory research. The NSF will be responsible for devel- oping appropriate coordination agreements with potential international partners, perhaps through bilateral Memoranda of Understanding. The management structure of the OOI must ensure that the project is in compliance with NSF policies and procedures and other federal regula- tions. It is critical that a single entity have overall financial and manage- ment accountability for the program. In the case of the OOI, this could be the Ocean Research Observatories Program Center (OROPC). The OROPC would enter into a cooperative agreement with the NSF to manage the OOI. Ideally, the OROPC should be a community-based organization ac- countable to the scientific community it serves. It could be either a new 501(c)3 not-for-profit corporation formed specifically for this purpose, or a division of an existing 501(c)3 corporation with demonstrated expertise in managing technically complex research facilities. The latter is the pre- ferred alternative. The OROPC would be advised by a Board of Gover- nors, whose members would include senior industry leaders with experi- ence in managing complex marine engineering projects as well as leaders of scientific institutions with expertise in managing research consortia responsible for major facilities. In addition to its advisory role, the Board would be able to provide Congress and senior agency management with an independent assessment of the OROPC's fiscal and technical manage- ment performance. The OROPC's primary responsibility would be coordination and pro- gram oversight. It would have a comparatively small staff including; a Director, a Program Engineer, a Data Management Coordinator, an Edu- cation and Outreach Coordinator, a Public Affairs Officer, a Contract Manager (or equivalent) to oversee contracting and support annual au- dits, and other staff as necessary. The Program Director should be com- petitively selected and should be a person of the highest scientific and technical caliber with a demonstrated ability to manage an organization of this scope.

OCR for page 72
78 ENABLING OCEAN RESEARCH IN THE 2 lST CENTURY The OROPC would be advised by both an Executive Committee com- prised of scientific and technology leaders, which would focus on policy issues, and by a Science Committee, which would provide scientific and technical advice derived from appropriate standing and ad hoc subcom- mittees channeled through standing Scientific, Technical and Operations Advisory Committees. In the tradition of the ODE, the OROPC would disregard advice from these committees only under exceptional circum- stances and then only with the concurrence of the NSF. The Science Committee and its subcommittees and panels would consist of a broad, diverse, and interdisciplinary membership selected on the basis of ex- cellence and creativity within their respective fields. Members could be selected from academia, industry, government, and the international com- munity. International representation on the top four committees (Execu- tive, Science, and the two Advisory Committees) should be determined by NSF agreements with international partners. The actual design, development, manufacture, construction, installa- tion, and operation of the observatories that compromise the OOI will be subcontracted by the OROPC to consortia, individual institutions, or pri- vate companies as appropriate. This decentralized management structure will promote maximum creativity and the tailoring of the management of each observatory system to the specific scientific goals and operational requirements of that particular system. Each operating entity will have flexibility of implementation (to encourage innovation), but will have to meet certain performance criteria in such areas as user interfaces, data management and archiving, access to education and outreach users, and maintenance and upgrade strategies. This structure will ensure that the entire system of observatories is more than just the sum of its parts and that research and educational users of both the facilities and data streams can move easily from one observatory to another. The OROPC will be responsible for working with the advisory structure to develop system- wide performance goals that balance the need for flexibility to encourage innovation with the desire to maintain maximum system functionality. International participation could be at the level of the entire research observatories program, or with specific components of the program and might range from simple coordination of independently funded and man- aged efforts to an integrated, jointly funded observatory program. The management of the OOI will need to be flexible enough to accommodate these different modes of international participation, as long as the integ- rity and transparency of the entire system are not put at risk. In the case of coastal research observatories, it is clear that the uni- verse of potential state, local, industry, and other federal partners is much larger than for the open-ocean observatories. The partners will also differ

OCR for page 72
/MPLEMENTAT/ON OF A NETWORK OF OCEAN OBSERVATORIES FOR RESEARCH 79 markedly from region to region and will likely include operational obser- vatories in some cases. Again, the NSF and the OROPC will have to be flexible in negotiating cooperative agreements that encourage broad par- ticipation without endangering the connectivity and synergism of the entire system. Over time, some observatories that are not part of the ini- tial OOI may wish to join this research observatory network. The pro- gram will need to develop a process by which this incorporation can be undertaken, as well as different options for program participation (e.g., some existing programs may only wish to utilize the data management system while others may wish to become a full partner in the scientific planning, operation, and maintenance of the observatory network). DEFINING "INFRASTRUCTURE" FOR OCEAN OBSERVATORIES As noted earlier in this report, funding for the OOI is being sought through the NSF's MREFC account. This account was established to pro- vide funding for major science and engineering infrastructure including the acquisition of: state-of-the-art tools that are centralized in nature, integrated systems of leading-edge instruments, and/or distributed nodes of information that serve as shared-use, networked infrastructure in advancing one or more fields of scientific study. (National Science Foundation, 2003, p. 1). [Note that in the MREFC context, "infrastructure" is used inter-changeably with "tools"]. While the three major components of the OOI described in Chapter 3 of this report clearly satisfy this definition of "infrastructure," there has been some confusion over what this infrastructure includes. From the OOI's inception, some of its proponents have argued that use of the MREFC should focus on acquiring the basic elements of an ocean obser- vatory system (e.g., cables, moorings, junction boxes, shore stations, and facilities for data distribution and archiving), not on acquiring the instru- mentation that would eventually utilize this infrastructure. Implicit in this approach is the assumption that funding sources other than the MREFC would provide support for instrument development and acquisi- tion as well as the deployment and maintenance of these instruments at various observatory nodes. The mechanism for obtaining this crucial sup- port would vary from project to project depending on the nature of the experiment, the sponsoring funding agency, and the role of the instru- ments in the overall observatory network. This mechanism would likely involve peer review, thus ensuring that only the most useful and best- justified instrumentation would be incorporated into the observatory sys- tem.

OCR for page 72
80 ENABLING OCEAN RESEARCH IN THE 2 lST CENTURY The rationale usually given for the above approach is that basic infra- structure funds are difficult to obtain. As a result, as much as possible of these funds should go toward acquiring basic hardware (e.g., cables, buoys, moorings and junction boxes). Risks of such an approach include a possible lack of available funding from other sources to acquire observa- tory sensors and/or the absence of a full suite of instruments that can utilize the observatory infrastructure once the construction and installa- tion phase of the OOI is completed. Others, therefore, have argued that some sensors and instrumentation should be included as part of the ob- servatory "infrastructure" even if doing so restricts the availability of resources for acquiring the cables, moorings, and junction boxes that com- prise the facility. The difficulty with this alternate approach is determin- ing which instruments and sensors should be included as part of the basic observatory infrastructure. The instrument lists developed in various ocean observatory workshop reports are long and costly. Including all, or even a significant fraction, of these instruments as part of observatory infrastructure could significantly reduce the number of observatory nodes that could be established with the limited funds available through the MREFC account. Another danger is that incorporating too many instru- ments into the basic infrastructure could discourage innovative produc- tion of new and better instruments. In considering this trade-off, certain analogies with oceanographic research vessels should be considered. In the case of a research vessel, the ship itself is the basic infrastructure. Scientists typically bring their own specialized instruments and install them on the ship for each expedition, using the ship as a platform for acquiring their data. Most ships, however, also include a basic suite of instrumentation that is required by most investigators (e.g., a GPS, an echo sounder, and a conductivity-tempera- ture-depth [CTD] profiler). By providing this basic instrument suite the ship operators ensure that every research vessel has a certain minimum scientific capability. This baseline capability is likely to be even more important at an ocean observatory, since the value of a node for special- ized and in some cases shorter-term scientific experiments may be very dependent on the availability of long time-series data of certain basic physical, chemical, and biological properties at the site. The critical question is thus not whether sensors and instruments should be considered as part of the basic observatory infrastructure (in- deed they should), but deciding which sensors or instruments should be part of the basic observatory infrastructure (thus funded through the MREFC account), and which sensors should be acquired by the scientific programs utilizing the observatories (thus funded through the Research & Related Activities account at the NSF or by other agencies supporting ocean research).

OCR for page 72
/MPLEMENTAT/ON OF A NETWORK OF OCEAN OBSERVATORIES FOR RESEARCH 81 In considering this question it is useful to define three classes of in- strumentation that may be installed at ocean observatories. The first class of instruments, "core" instruments, include a basic suite of engineering and scientific instruments that are essential to the functioning of the ob- servatory and its usefulness as a platform for basic research. Core instru- ment needs will vary widely for different classes of observatories and will depend on the scientific objectives of each node. Such instruments could include (1) engineering or system management instruments used to de- termine the system's operational status, and (2) commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) instruments that make basic physical, chemical, or biological mea- surements and provide essential scientific context for the observatory's effective use as a platform for scientific research. Data from core instru- ments should be available to anyone in real-time, or as soon as is practical, through the observatory data management system. Furthermore, the core instruments should be maintained and routinely calibrated to interna- tionally-agreed upon standards so these data can be integrated with ele- ments of other observing networks. A second class of instruments, "community instruments," consists of specialized scientific instruments critical to the longer-term scientific ob- jectives of a particular node. These typically will be proven and reliable ('observatory-capable') instruments that provide data of interest to a wide range of investigators and that need to be in operation over an extended period of time. Examples might include ocean bottom seismometers, cam- eras and video systems, mooring line 'crawlers,' or borehole fluid sam- plers. Data from community instruments also should be freely available in real-time or as soon as is practical. The third class of instruments that will be used at most observatories will be those associated with individual, investigator-initiated experi- ments. These "investigator owned" instruments may be new or develop- mental, or may be specific to a particular scientific study or experiment. Data from such instruments may be proprietary to the investigator for some specified time period consistent with the data policy of the sponsor- ing funding agency (e.g., two years for the NSF). Data from these instru- ments must still be submitted to the ocean observatory data management system and should be made publicly available after the embargo period ends. The core instruments, as defined above, comprise an essential ele- ment of the basic observatory infrastructure that should be supported through the MREFC even if that means a reduction in the overall size of the observatory facility. Shore-based facilities for data distribution and archiving are also part of the basic observatory infrastructure that should be supported through the OOI. In some cases a community instrument might also be important enough to the scientific rationale of a particular

OCR for page 72
82 ENABLING OCEAN RESEARCH IN THE 2 lST CENTURY observatory that it should also be considered as part of the basic infra- structure. In most cases, however, funding for those science programs (e.g., CLIVAR, Ridge 2000, GLOBEC) or groups of investigators using the facility would seek funding for "community instruments" from sources other than the NSF's MREFC account via peer-reviewed proposals sub- mitted to the NSF or other agencies supporting ocean research. Since core instrument needs will vary widely from observatory to observatory, it is inappropriate for this report to define a list of core instruments or to specify a certain percentage of MREFC funds that should be utilized for core instrument acquisition. The proponents of each observatory system will be in the best position to judge the trade-off between basic observa- tory hardware (i.e., the number of nodes) and the basic sensor require- ments for that hardware given the finite resources available through the MREFC. The expectation, however, is that every observatory will require some core instrumentation. Even if core instruments are included as part of the basic observatory infrastructure funded through the MREFC, they will constitute only a small portion of the longer-term instrument needs for ocean observato- ries. The total investment in sensors and instrumentation for observatory systems acquired through the OOI could, over time, approach the cost of the observatory infrastructure itself. The research community has ex- pressed concern that the funding to acquire these instruments may not materialize and that, as a consequence, access to the observatory infra- structure will be delayed and the full scientific potential of ocean obser- vatories will not be realized. The long-term scientific success of the re- search-driven observatory network will depend at least in part on the development of a program within the NSF's Ocean Sciences Division which will select peer-reviewed proposals for funding of new observa- tory sensors and instrumentation. Given the significant lead-time involved in constructing and acquiring new instrumentation, the NSF is encour- aged to establish an "Ocean Observatory Instrumentation Program" well in advance of when these observatories become operational. As instru- mentation needs at observatories will evolve continuously (see the fol- lowing discussion), such a program will be needed as long as ocean ob- servatories remain in operation. Other agencies with an interest in ocean research may also support acquisition of instrumentation for ocean obser- vatories and the NSF is encouraged to explore these options, perhaps through an interagency mechanism such as the NOPP program. SENSORS AND INSTRUMENTATION NEEDS Making integrated physical, chemical, and biological observations in the oceans presents challenges quite different from those faced by atmo-

OCR for page 72
/MPLEMENTAT/ON OF A NETWORK OF OCEAN OBSERVATORIES FOR RESEARCH 127 Science Foundation, 2002~. This section discusses scientific planning, en- gineering development, and system testing needs over the next two to three years; describes the factors that might affect the phasing of imple- mentation of each of the three main OOI components; and recommends an implementation strategy for the five-year OOI-MREFC program. It was beyond the scope of this study to develop a detailed cost analy- sis for the construction and installation of each OOI component (coastal, regional, and global). Planning for each of these elements has developed largely independently of the others, and important decisions on the exact proposals have yet to be made. Although precise cost estimates are thus impossible to make at the present time, the development of a detailed and comprehensive project implementation plan and cost analysis for each of the three major components of the OOI, and the review of these plans by knowledgeable and independent experts is needed as soon as possible. These plans should be completed by the end of 2004 and reviewed in early 2005. If the total cost of the infrastructure envisioned for the OOI exceeds the resources available through the MREFC, the scope of each proposed component, as well as each component's relative priority will need reassessing. Pre-lnstallation Planning and Development Needs A program as large and complex as the OOI requires an extensive planning and development effort prior to installation of the MREFC- funded infrastructure. These activities have been under way for some time (Chapter 3) but much remains to be accomplished; planning and development work will need to be accelerated between now and the beginning of construction and installation. Significant levels of additional funding (several million dollars over the next two to three years) will be required to support these activities. An essential first step for pre-installation planning is the establish- ment of the OOI Program Office, described in the first section of this chapter, to oversee and coordinate these planning activities. It is recom- mended that this office be established by the end of 2003. The Program Office's first task should be the development of a detailed and compre- hensive project implementation plan, as outlined above. The Program Office also needs to oversee scientific and technical plan- ning to better define locations, scientific objectives, and core instrument and infrastructure requirements of specific observatory nodes and obser- vatory systems. Scientific planning will allow individuals, groups, and programs to compete through a peer-reviewed mechanism for research time, bandwidth, and power usage on observatory infrastructure. This

OCR for page 72
128 ENABLING OCEAN RESEARCH IN THE 2 lST CENTURY process should begin immediately and should involve the broadest pos- sible cross section of the ocean sciences community. The process may include planning workshops, solicitation, and review of proposals from individuals and community groups, and the establishment of science and technical advisory committees to the Program Office. A third major task of the OOI Program Office should be the develop- ment of both a comprehensive data management plan for the OOI and a strategy for an innovative and effective EPO program. In addition to scientific and program planning, development and test- ing of the more advanced observatory infrastructure components envi- sioned for the OOI is required prior to the beginning of the MREFC (these needs have been outlined in some detail in Chapter 3~. Funding has been secured for prototyping and testing of some critical sub-systems, and for the establishment of testbeds for cabled and moored buoy observatories (e.g., the Acoustically-linked Ocean Observing System [ALOOS], MARS, MOOS). However, additional funding will be required to complete this development and testing work prior to the construction and installation phase of the MREFC. Of particular importance is testing of the power and communications sub-systems for the multi-node, looped-network topol- ogy envisioned for the NEPTUNE-type, regional-scale cabled observa- tory, as well as the design, prototyping, and testing of critical sub-systems for the high-bandwidth, cable-linked moored buoys (i.e., EOM cable, C- Band antenna, and diesel power generation). The technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness of utilizing retired telecommunications cables for some global network observatory sites should also be thoroughly evaluated during this period. Ocean Observatories Initiative Implementation Strategy The proposed OOI MRFEC funding profile shown in Figure 1-5 will increase from $27 million dollars in FY 2006 to approximately $80 million dollars in FY 2008 and will decrease to approximately $43 or $44 million dollars in FY 2009 and FY 2010. While it is not clear how much flexibility there may be in changing these proposed year-to-year expenditures, the DEOS Steering Committee or, once it is established, the OOI Program Office should review this funding profile and determine if it is optimal for the OOI's specific requirements. In considering possible phasing of construction and installation of the ocean observatory infrastructure over this five-year period, a number of different criteria have been considered including scientific and technical readiness, risk, cost considerations, timely payoff, and leveraging oppor- tunities. Table 4-3 summarizes these criteria for each of the three OOI

OCR for page 72
/MPLEMENTAT/ON OF A NETWORK OF OCEAN OBSERVATORIES FOR RESEARCH 129 components. The following sections discuss, these criteria and offer rec- ommended phasing strategies. As there is insufficient information avail- able to develop a five-year construction and installation budget, tasks have been assigned to one of three different phases (early, middle, late) for the five-year OOI MREFC program. Global Observatory Network Scientific planning for the global observatory network is mature and nas proceeded to the level of identifying specific sites and multidisci- plinary instrumentation requirements for each node (Chapter 3; Figure 3- 1~. Site selection is being coordinated at the international level and there are significant opportunities to leverage the investment the NSF makes with additional nodes funded by other nations (Appendix E). The low- bandwidth, oceanographic mooring design proposed for many low- and mid-latitude sites is already in use for oceanographic and meteorological applications and additional buoys can be built and deployed as soon as funds are available. Priority has been given to sites that fill gaps in the present time-series observatory system and that meet interdisciplinary research needs (DEOS Moored Buoy Observatory Working Group, 2003~. The opportunity for early scientific payoff for these sites is high, espe- cially for climate and oceanographic research applications. The high-latitude and high-bandwidth buoy systems proposed as part of the global program will, however, require additional prototyping and testing before large-scale construction and deployment of these systems can begin (Chapter 3~. The proposed high-latitude sites are characterized by severe weather, including high surface winds and seas, which will require new engineering approaches for buoy and mooring design to ensure survivability. The high-bandwidth buoy systems that have been proposed are also new, and will require validation and testing of critical sub-systems (e.g., EOM cable design and terminations, C-Band antenna performance, and reliability of unattended diesel generators), preferably by initial deployment of a prototype system at a low or mid-latitude location. These considerations suggest phasing for installation of global obser- vatories (Box 4-2), assuming that the OOI is divided into three phases of approximately one and a half to two years each. Regiona/-Sca/e Observatories Through the efforts of the U.S. and Canadian NEPTUNE groups, sci- entific and technical planning for a plate-scale cabled observatory in the

OCR for page 72
130 ENABLING OCEAN RESEARCH IN THE 2 lST CENTURY TABLE 4-3 Phasing Criteria for Seafloor Observatory Implementation Global Network Regional- Scientific Readiness Scientific objectives well-defined; scientific planning Scientific very mature with ~20 potential multidisciplinary scientific observatory sites identified. Good coordination at the system or international level. definition objective' requirem Technological Readiness Low-to-mid latitude, low-bandwidth acoustically- Major pro linked moorings feasible now; cable-linked and high- power ar latitude moorings need prototyping and testing of design d. critical sub-systems (EOM cable, C-Band antenna, Two testl power generation) before large scale deployment; for valid; re-use of telecom cables needs feasibility study. Need ful a multi-e Risk Low for low-to-mid latitude, low bandwidth systems; Moderate moderate for low-to-mid latitude high-bandwidth common systems; high for high-latitude systems; should because ~ consider cable re-use to minimize risk at some high node, me latitude sites. risk can l designs ~ installation Financial Considerations Unit cost is about $1 million dollars to several Desirable million dollars/node; total costs scalable by number installati' of moorings acquired. advantag market cat will inch Timely Payoff Depends on science, but opportunities for early Given sit payoff are high, particularly in remote regions. for route likely to . five-year Leveraging Opportunities High, with international collaboration with other High, wi nations (Japan, United Kingdom, Europe). and poss Northeast Pacific is well advanced (NEPTUNE Phase I Partners, 2000~. As described in Chapter 3, however, a large, plate-scale cabled observatory like NEPTUNE presents some major engineering challenges. The progress in developing and testing new technology to meet these engineering re- quirements and the long lead times required for many of the tasks in-

OCR for page 72
/MPLEMENTAT/ON OFA NETWORK OF OCEAN OBSERVATORIES FOR RESEARCH 131 tation Regional-Scale Coastal Planning nary on at the cally- nd high- ing of enna, Dent; dy. systems; width 1ld he high al number rly as. other Scientific objectives well-defined; scientific planning for NEPTUNE-like system mature, but need better definition of location, scientific objectives and infrastructure requirements of individual nodes. Major progress made in the design of power and telemetry systems but final design decisions have not been made. Two testbeds are under development for validation of major sub-systems. Need full system integration test using a multi-node, loop network topology. Moderate-to-high because power and communication systems are new and because of the complexity of multiple- node, multiple-loop network topology; risk can be minimized by validating designs using testbeds and a phased installation. Desirable to acquire cable and sign installation contracts early to take advantage of present depressed market conditions; phased installation will increase total costs. Given significant lead time required for route surveys and permitting, not likely to be operational until late in five-year period. High, with collaboration with Canada and possibly other nations. Scientific planning still in early stages; relative importance in OOI of mobile Pioneer Arrays, cabled observatories, and long time-series sites requires more community input. Relationship to IOOS coastal sites needs definition. Pioneer Arrays and Codar use standard "off-the-shelf" technology; use of simple cabled systems in coastal environment demonstrated; more complex cabled observatories with mesh topology or multiple nodes need development; issues with damage from fishing, corrosion, vandalism need to be addressed. Risk for coastal radar systems very low; risk for mooring arrays low-to-moderate; risk for cables low. Requires further definition of components of coastal OOI. Does not appear that phasing will have a major impact on costs. Early payoff possible with operation of first Pioneer Array or augmentation of existing coastal observatories. High, through leveraging of funding from state and other federal agencies, IOOS. valved in installing a NEPTUNE-like cabled observatory will place strong constraints on the funding timeline of the OOI MREFC. Power and communications systems for a system like NEPTUNE will be significantly different than systems used with conventional submarine telecommunications cables. The multi-node, multiple-loop network

OCR for page 72
132 ENABLING OCEAN RESEARCH IN THE 2 lST CENTURY topology of NEPTUNE is also unprecedented for a submarine cable sys- tem. These engineering and technical issues are being addressed on a number of fronts. Engineering design studies have been completed or are under way for both the power and telemetry sub-systems and two test- beds (VENUS and MARS) are under development for validation of these system designs. As presently funded, however, MARS will provide only a partial test of the key power and data telemetry sub-systems since its relatively short, single-cable, single-node design will not test the opera- tion of these sub-systems with the more complex multi-node, looped net- work topology of a NEPTUNE-like observatory. A full system integration test of all major sub-systems (power, telemetry, timing, and command and control) with a multi-node, looped network topology is recommended before the full deployment of such a network. This test could be accom- plished by augmenting the MARS testbed with an on-land, full-configu- ration test or with a phased deployment of the full network by initially

OCR for page 72
/MPLEMENTAT/ON OF A NETWORK OF OCEAN OBSERVATORIES FOR RESEARCH 133 installing only one of the three planned loops. While a phased two-stage installation of a looped network will cost more than a single installation, the reduction in risk brought about by this approach may be worth any additional cost. Important logistical considerations will also affect the timing of in- stallation of a NEPTUNE-like system. Obtaining the necessary permits, especially near cable landfalls, can take up to two years. Cable routes need to be surveyed prior to installation in order to assess bottom charac- teristics and topography for hazards. Time is required to fabricate and test the cable. In addition, nodes must be designed, ordered, manufac- tured, and tested, both individually and in their final configuration. Given the present depressed state of the telecommunications industry, signifi- cant cost savings may be achieved by purchasing cable and contracting for installation sooner rather than later; the NEPTUNE system may not use standard submarine optical amplifiers or cable power systems, how- ever, so non-standard cables will likely be needed. The operation of the major sub-systems (power, telemetry, and timing), and the operation of the system as a whole, need to be simulated and validated through exten- sive computer modeling and physical testing throughout the construction and installation phase. These considerations suggest the phasing for installation of a NEP- TUNE-like, regional-scale cabled observatory over the five-year MREFC (Box 4-3~. Coastal Observatories As described in Chapter 3, scientific planning for coastal observato- ries in the context of the OOI began in 2002, but there is still no commu- nity consensus on the appropriate balance between spatial mapping and high-resolution time-series. Additionally, it is essential to establish a num- ber of long-term time-series sites in U.S. coastal waters, including the Great Lakes, using cables and buoys. There is, however, no agreement on whether this need can be met by the moorings that Ocean.US is planning to deploy as part of the coastal IOOS, or whether the OOI will require moorings specifically dedicated to coastal ocean research. The coastal community will need to develop a consensus on the appropriate balance of Pioneer Arrays, cabled observatories, and long-term measurement sites required to meet future coastal research needs. This consensus can be achieved by bringing together the diverse coastal community, including representatives from Ocean.US. Discussions should focus on implemen- tation with pragmatic consideration given to the appropriate mix of re- locatable and permanent observing systems. This planning effort should

OCR for page 72
134 ENABLING OCEAN RESEARCH IN THE 2 lST CENTURY identify the number and location of long-term time-series sites and the instrument requirements at these sites. While additional scientific planning is needed, the available technolo- gies for coastal observatories are relatively mature and installation of these systems is feasible within the five-year MREFC time frame. How- ever, some important technical challenges exist. Biofouling and corrosion remain significant problems for long-term observations in the coastal ocean and a major effort to mitigate their affects is required. Coastal moor- ings have not been outfitted with bistatic radar arrays and they rarely integrate the new generation big-optical sensors required for biogeo- chemically relevant measurements. For the coastal radar arrays, the de-

OCR for page 72
/MPLEMENTAT/ON OF A NETWORK OF OCEAN OBSERVATORIES FOR RESEARCH 135 velopment of multi-static arrays will require further development of syn- chronous timing technology that allows different radars to use the same radio frequency. Coastal cables are largely limited by a lack of robust multi-sensor auto-profiling of the water column. Until a community consensus is reached on the infrastructure re- quired for coastal research observatories, any implementation plan will, of necessity, be rather notional. The following plan (Box 4-4) assumes construction of two Pioneer Arrays, the establishment of a coastal instru- ment testbed, a new coastal cabled observatory, and the augmentation of the IOOS national network of long-term coastal time-series moorings with additional instrumentation to make them suitable for interdisciplinary coastal research.

OCR for page 72
136 ENABLING OCEAN RESEARCH IN THE 2 lST CENTURY

OCR for page 72
/MPLEMENTAT/ON OF A NETWORK OF OCEAN OBSERVATORIES FOR RESEARCH 137 Data Management System Implementation Establishment of the OOI-DMS will need to be phased and coordi- nated with observatory installations (Box 4-5~. Even though the operators of each observatory system will manage data functions individually, co- ordination at the program level will be necessary to guarantee compat- ibility across observatory types. A Data Management advisory committee should be established by the OOI Program Office to oversee the imple- mentation strategy outlined in Box 4-5.