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 136
8
Supporting an Ocean Exploration Program
MOVING BEYOND THE EXISTING PROGRAM
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office
of Ocean Exploration, which was established in 2000, does not have the
wherewithal to undertake the interdisciplinary, global ocean exploration
program proposed in this report. Significantly higher allocations are needed
to support a more comprehensive program. More money is needed to
increase the program's scope, its flexibility, and researchers' access to equip-
ment all of which will serve to increase its chances for success.
The budget for NOAA's Office of Ocean Exploration is indicative of
current limitations on U.S. ocean exploration. Initially funded at $4 million
in 2001, during ensuing years the program has been funded for $13.2
million and $14.2 million annually. The budget for fiscal year 2004 is in the
same range although at the time of publication Congressional support is
uncertain. This initial effort has been worthwhile, and it serves as a basis for
evaluating what can be accomplished. The effort has been partially pro-
posal driven and partially driven by agency mission, without significant
thematic direction or input from the scientific community. That aside, some
regional workshops have been held to engage more members of the scien-
tific community in the office's efforts.
Fiscal limitations have constrained NOAA's ability to carry out a com-
prehensive exploration program. Critical elements, such as the following,
have been compromised by a lack of money:
.
Postcruise science is not funded. Not all discoveries are made
during an actual offshore effort, and some discoveries could be
missed if specialized onshore tests cannot be performed. Few sig-
nificant discoveries have been announced or exploited.
136
OCR for page 137
SUPPORTING AN OCEAN EXPLORATION PROGRAM
· Data management is not funded, so the oceanographic research
community has little access to information.
· Only limited technology development is funded. New sensors, for
example, to investigate novel sites or measure unsampled properties
of the ocean, are not being developed.
· Ship costs are usually leveraged with other planned programs. The
resulting ad hoc efforts do not allow complete freedom to explore a
particular site or to venture out of relatively well-studied areas to
explore the entire world's oceans.
Project planning is often for the short term because of the nature of
government budgeting and within-agency appropriations.
International cooperative efforts are not supported.
The scientific community does not see the program as a significant
resource of funding for sustained exploration programs.
The NOAA effort is not large enough to generate significant discoveries
in the ocean sciences nor is it likely to advance the new technologies that
could initiate commercial opportunities. Despite its small budget; however,
the NOAA program has demonstrated that there is substantial interest from
the U.S. ocean research community. The NOAA exploration program has
received many proposals that it was unable to fund.
EXISTING U.S. ASSETS: MECHANISMS TO INCREASE AVAILABILITY
The University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS)
allocates ships and other research platforms using proposals submitted to
the oceanographic research agencies, primarily the National Science Foun-
dation (NSF), the Office of Naval Research, and NOAA. If the exploration
program is to use existing U.S. assets, an accommodation must be explicitly
incorporated into the UNOLS allocation system. Because exploration pro-
(J 1
~ ,,
grams will be additions to the current research expedition schedules, addi-
tional ship time must be allocated. Since demand fully occupies available
UNOLS global class ship time, exploration programs will have to compete
for available ships. The proposed fleet capitalization effort should encom-
pass exploration-related programs and the special requirements that might
be associated with them (Federal Oceanographic Facilities Committee,
20011. Exploration also could be hampered by UNOLS inability to respond
rapidly to a discovery because of the lack of availability. Long-term plan-
ning and agency commitment, more than a year in advance, is essential to
the efficient operation of an oceanographic fleet. Historically, only NSF and
137
OCR for page 138
138
EXPLORATION OF THE SEAS
the Office of Naval Research have been able to accommodate such plan-
ning. The current UNOLS system cannot generally accommodate short-
term, short-notice charters. A specially designed ship for exploration programs
or the abi I ity to use short-term commercial charters could help al leviate th is
problem.
Issues of cost and safety also must be addressed to ensure that short-
term commercial charters are efficient and safe. Use of some specialized
commercial equipment such as remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), autono-
mous underwater vehicles (AUVs), human occupied vehicle (HOV), and some
laboratory equipment could be made possible by establishing agreements
in advance of the need for deployment. This is especially true for portable
equipment that can be deployed rapidly to sites anywhere in the world.
COST OF OPERATIONS
Operational and capitalization costs for three funding scenarios are
described in Table 8.1. The minimal program (about $30 million for the
first year, including capitalization costs; $30 million for subsequent years'
operation) would target just one or two priority themes to be truly success-
ful. It might be able to support a long-term program focused on a particular
theme, but only if the funding were constant. Capitalization costs would be
minimal there would be limited education and outreach and little oppor-
tunity to explore extremely remote or hostile locations. All assets would be
rented or leased, so advanced scheduling would be essential and there
would be only limited opportunity to respond to specific events.
Three priority theme areas could be addressed by a program funded
according to the middle plan (about $125 million for the first year, includ-
ing capitalization costs; about $70 million for subsequent years' operation
costs). The program would use two years' ship time with varying capabili-
ties, depending on the environment and the themes addressed. Capitaliza-
tion would enable the purchase of a dedicated HOV, three dedicated ROVs,
and five dedicated AUVs and leasing or renting additional submersible
facilities and other equipment. Data management would be state of the art.
International efforts could include joint projects. Outreach could occur
from shipboard operations and include film and television. Education would
include curriculum development and teacher training. The geographic
range of operations would be extended to all oceans, but there would still
be limited opportunity to respond to rare events.
The fully capitalized program (about $270 million for the first year,
including capitalization costs; about $110 million for subsequent years'
OCR for page 139
SUPPORTING AN OCEAN EXPLORATION PROGRAM
139
TABLE 8.1 Operational Funding Estimates: Program Features
Funding Minimal Program Competitive Program Fully Capitalized Program
Annual funding
About $30 million
About $70 million
About $110 million
Equivalent class 1 ship timea One year Three years Two years plus one year
on a dedicated
purpose-built ship
Numberof exploration themes One Three Several
addressed concurrently
Environmental conditions Nonhostile Some hostile All oceans
Locations Mostly U.S. territories All oceans All oceans
International participation Collaborative efforts Cooperative efforts Acceptance of in-kind
contributionsb
Long-term programs Limited Moderate Moderate
Capitalization Minimal Moderate Large
Remotely operated vehicles One leased for a Three owned and Five owned and operated
full year operated (state of the art)
Human occupied vehicles One leased for a One leased for full year; Two leased plus one
(HOV)' full year one owned and owned and operated
operated
Autonomous underwater One leased for a Five owned and Ten owned (state of the
vehicles (AUV) full year operatedd art)d
Outreach At sea Long-term capacity Long-term capacity
building building
Development of future Limited Moderate Full
program visions (as a
percentage of a budget)e
Data management Yes Yes and investigate Yes and investigate
new methodologies new methodologies
aEquivalent class 1 (greater than 250 feet long) ship time/year could be for a single vessel or for several vessels concur-
rently for a total of one ship-year on a vessel classified by the University-National Oceanography Laboratory System as
class 1.
bin-kind contributions could include contributed ship time, professional assistance, technical support, and satellite
access.
'HOV leases refer to possible leasing of existing assets as listed in Table 6.1.
dCommercial AUVs could be leased, if appropriate.
eDynamic new exploration plans will require dedicated resources, feasible only with greater funding.
OCR for page 140
140
EXPLORATION OF THE SEAS
operation) would focus on several priority themes simultaneously. That
program would include year-round use of several exploration platforms and
flexibility in scheduling those platforms to best meet program goals. The
program-owned fleet would consist of a ship, three HOVs, five ROVs, and
ten AUVs. The fully capitalized program's HOVs, ROVs, and AUVs would
have a range of water depth capabilities. HOVs would be purchased for
shallow-water research ($200,000-$300,000) and for work at depths of
6,500 m ($20 million). ROVs would range in water depth and manipulator
capabilities from the relatively inexpensive "observation" types to heavy-
work, deep-water units. The costs for those vehicles are discussed later.
The program also would have the resources to lease other platforms in
specialized environments as needed. With less funding, the program would
likely need to schedule the use of different platforms, and it would not have
complete control over the scheduling of platforms for exploration projects.
Technology development would include sensors and platforms, and out-
reach would extend to international capacity building.
Annual operating expense estimates were generated using estimates for
various costs associated with maintaining the Exploration Program for the
Oceans (ExPO) office, supporting the oversight framework, and conducting
exploration (Table 8.21. The estimates in Table 8.2 are derived from com-
mittee members' experience, the operational costs of comparable programs,
and a review of several reports and Web sites. Ship costs, for example, are
based on 300-day-per-year use at $20,000 per day approximated from
costs for UNOLS for large and global class ships. For 2001, the R/V Reve//e,
R/V Melville, R/V Thompson, R/V Knorr, and R/V Atlantis averaged $5.5
million each (National Science Foundation, 20001. One ship-year equiva-
lent is projected for the minimal program level. For the competitive pro-
gram, two ship-years are proposed. At the fully capitalized level, costs are
estimated for the operation of two leased vessels and one owned vessel fully
dedicated to ocean exploration. The ExPO office budget figures were esti-
mated based on three successive annual budgets (2000-2002) for the Joint
Oceanographic Institutions. The expenses include personnel, rent and
equipment, miscellaneous office expenses, and hiring outside contractors
(including legal assistance for developing international agreements).
The budget for submersible equipment and operations (HOVs, ROVs,
AUVs) is based on input from the operators of major U.S. oceanographic
facilities for submersible science (Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Harbor Branch Oceanographic
Institution). For example, a $~.5 million annual budget presented by Richard
Pittenger (personal communication) for the National Deep Submergence
OCR for page 141
SUPPORTING AN OCEAN EXPLORATION PROGRAM
TABLE 8.2 Yearly Cost Estimatesa
141
Minimal Competitive Fully Capitalized
Program Program Program
Item ($ million) ($ million) ($ million)
Shiptime 6.0 12.0 18.0
Exploration Program for the Oceans Office
Personnel 1.3 2.6 3.9
Rent and equipment 0.2 0.4 0.6
Office expenses 0.2 0.4 0.6
Outside contractors 0.5 1.0 1.5
Human Occupied Vehicle (HOV), Remotely 6.0 20.0 36.0
Operated Vehicle (ROV), and Autonomous
Underwater Vehicle (AUV) operations
Other shipboard equipment 2.0 3.0 4.0
Data management
Information services (10% of budget) 3.0 7.0 11.0
Science support
Meetings 0.5 1.0 1.5
Travel 0.5 1.0 1.5
Scientist support 3.5 7.0 10.5
Technology development (10% of budget) 3.0 7.0 11.0
Education and outreach (10% of budget) 3.0 7.0 11.0
Total Operations 29.7 69.4 111
Capitalization
Ship 0 0
HOV 0.0 25.0 25.0
ROV 0.0 12.0 20.0
AUV 0.0 15.0 30.0
Other equipment 1.0 3.0 15.0
Total capitalization 1.0 55.0 160
Total program 30.7 124 271
aThese budget values are based upon the committee's best current estimates for technology development of the
major infrastructure items, and for operations.
OCR for page 142
142
EXPLORATION OF THE SEAS
Facility includes the deep submergence vehicle Alvin, the ROV system
Jason Il/Medea, DSL 1 20 (towed sonar vehicle), and Argo 11 (towed imaging
and mapping vehicle). The operation day varies by platform. HOVs gener-
ally have a 1 2-hour operation day; ROVs and AUVs can operate for 1 8-24
hours. At the minimal program level, the annual cost of $6 million is based
on $2 million each for one HOV, one ROV, and one AUV. This would
enable the operation of each system an HOV, an ROV, or an AUV-
deployed on one or several vessels for the equivalent of one ship-year. For
the competitive program, the budget includes sufficient assets to be deployed
on two ships or their equivalent (Table 8.1, note a): two HOVs, three ROVs,
and five AUVs. For the fully capitalized program, at least three complete
systems (HOV, ROV, AUV) or "fleets" of AUVs, plus some combination of
HOVs and ROVs as dictated by science, would be funded.
The cost for other shipboard equipment includes leasing instrumenta-
tion and equipment as dictated by a given mission. Data management is
estimated at 10 percent of the total operating budget. For comparison, the
Ocean Drilling Program spends about 3.4 percent of its budget on data
management a figure the committee believes is too low and the Incorpo-
rated Research Institutions for Seismology spend about 33 percent on data
management which would be too large a proportion of the total ExPO
budget. The committee proposes 10 percent of the budget as a realistic
figure. The budget includes the costs of sending scientists to and from sea
and to meetings to present findings. It also includes salaries for scientists
while at sea as well as for some follow-up time after cruises. It includes
costs for sample and data analysis. Neither ExPO nor the Ocean Drilling
Program is designed to do the science associated with collecting samples
and data at sea; they would collect, catalog, and describe the samples.
Sufficient funding must be allowed for data archival and for publishing
results. Some funding should be made available for postcruise scientific
studies to facilitate and develop hypotheses for the discoveries made during
ocean cruises.
It is assumed that an ocean exploration program will require regular,
extensive technical development to ensure program success. Ten percent
of the annual budget is allocated for technology development. For com-
parison, NSF budgets about $10 million annually for technology develop-
ment in ocean sciences (A. Isern, personal communication).
The education and outreach budget is 10 percent of the annual appro-
priation, following NOAA's Office of Ocean Exploration's current budget
profile. The committee believes this is appropriate, particularly for the
competitive and fuliv capitalized programs.
OCR for page 143
SUPPORTING AN OCEAN EXPLORATION PROGRAM
INITIAL CAPITALIZATION
The success of the exploration program will depend on the capital
assets available (Table 8.21. The most obvious question is whether the
program will own (or contract for a long-term charter) a flagship and, if it does,
what its specifications should be. Other assets should include submersibles
of various types ROVs, AUVs, and HOVs and specialized laboratory
equipment that will allow shipboard processing of data. The advantages of
ownership are obvious: it is better to have a fleet that is available on short
notice and to have access to equipment that is suitable for use in a particular
area or environment.
An exploration flagship is recommended to maximize program capa-
bilities; ensure access and scheduling flexibility; and allow for well-integrated,
ship-based education programs. Although the initial expense can be daunt-
ing, at least one government report has shown that purchasing a vessel is
more cost effective than is long-term leasing (U.S. General Accounting
Office, 19991. The ocean exploration vessel should be equipped with a
state-of-the-art ROV, a state-of-the-art HOV, and at least one state-of-the-art
AUV. The estimated cost for such a flagship would be $70 million to $80
million. Ship capitalization assumes that a UNOLS large or global class
ship will be required to sail in all oceans. Limited ice strengthening of the
vessel also is assumed. The cost estimates were obtained from the Federal
Oceanographic Facilities Committee (2001) ($70 million). The flagship
should be capable of:
· state-of-the-art navigation and broadband communications for all
oceans;
· Class 2 dynam ic position i ng;
· simultaneous ROV and HOV activities;
HOV capabilities to 6,500 m;
ROV and AUV capabilities to 6,500 m; and
state-of-the-art sampl i ng.
More specific equipment requirements should be determined by a select
interdisciplinary committee. To ensure a competitive, cost-effective vessel
selection process, the ExPO office should consider issuing a request for
proposals for vessel procurement and the ship should be operated by UNOLS.
Bids would likely include new and retrofit vessels, and cost-effectiveness
would be considered in selecting the final contract. Therefore, those equip-
ment capital costs are not estimated in this report. Capitalization require-
ments also would depend on the assets reliably available from UNOLS.
143
OCR for page 144
144
EXPLORATION OF THE SEAS
Any project need to investigate below 6,500 m water depth is not
expected to represent a significant portion of the exploration effort. Until
recently, full-ocean-depth requirements for an ROV could have been met
by existing equipment (Japan Marine Science and Technology Center, 20031.
Recently, the full-ocean-depth Kaiko was lost. At a development cost
estimated at $60 mi 11 ion (National Research Counci 1, 1 996), a Kaiko-equivalent
would represent a considerable proportion of the proposal capital budget.
This one piece of equipment might not be used a significant amount of time
during the program. The cost of building a full-ocean-depth HOV capable
of reaching the approximately one percent of ocean floor below 6,500 m
are estimated to be three to five times that for a 6,500 m HOV and are not
included here.
Capitalization costs for ROVs depend on several factors, and they can
vary dramatically from one system to another, even among ROVs of the
same class (Box 8.11. The most important considerations for estimating
costs for those systems involve the variables of mission requirement, operat-
ing depth, and support vessel, which should result in detailed specifications
(Table 8.31. The cost to build a 6,500 m ROV was estimated at $4 million
a,
which was based on the cost ($3.7 million) of the Jason 11 (R. Pittenger,
personal communication).
Where possible, AUVs for exploration purposes should use commercial
capabilities (on short- or long-term charters) because considerable experi-
ence is required to achieve reliable mission success. For example, the
Hugin 3000 AUV, manufactured by Kongsberg-Simrad and operated by
C & C Technologies, Inc., is successfully used for high-resolution geophysical
surveys. Significant costs are associated with the capitalization and devel-
opment of AUVs with sophisticated or deep-water capabilities. The cost of
the Hugin 3000 is $3.5 million (C. Hancock, personal communication) with
an expected additional $2 million (T. Chance, personal communication) in
added costs to fully outfit the system. It costs about $3 million more each
year to maintain the Hugin 3000. Other AUVs with less sophisticated
requirements, such as the Bluefin and the Autonomous Benthic Explorer,
require less initial capital (about $2 million) and are suggested as sufficient
for water column and limited benthic studies.
HOV use in an exploration program is expected to vary from shallow
water to deep water. Many archaeological studies use shallow-water HOVs
such as Seamagine's Seamobile (Seamagine Hydrospace Corporation, 2001;
Bass, 2002), which costs $200,000 to $300,000. Programs that focus on a
continental shelf or slope could use mid-depth-range submersibles, such as
the Hawaii Underwater Research Laboratory's Pisces and the Harbor Branch
OCR for page 145
SUPPORTING AN OCEAN EXPLORATION PROGRAM
145
Mission requirements determine the amount of power that must be transmitted to an ROV
as well as the specialized tooling, video, navigation, and sensor and sampling equipment
required (Table 8.31. This in turn determines the number and size of power conductors, fiber-optic
cables, and armoring, which affect the complexity, overall diameter, and weight of the umbilical.
Manipulators run, for example, the full range from simple joystick-controlled grabbers to more
costly, complex, and sophisticated systems that use master-slave control functions for great
dexterity and multiple tool options. Consideration must be given to the amount of spares to be
carried onboard. For an ROV system with worldwide operational capability far from shore-
based support, the amount of spares and test and repair equipment could be a significant cost
factor. The operating-depth requirement determines the length and characteristics of the
umbilical and the surface handling system, including the winch used to store, launch, and
recover ROVs. It also will determine the packaging of instrumentation and ROV components,
such as buoyancy, electronics housings, and other pressure-resistant components the cost of
which is affected by depth. The support vessels must be considered in the cost analysis. Costs
to mobilize and permanently install large ROV or HOV systems with very deep capabilities can
be significant and are part of the overall capitalization. Placement of the system, including the
launch and recovery equipment and control centers, can require expensive vessel modifica-
tions. Special consideration also might need to go to building over-boarding systems to allow
for launch and recovery in rough seas. For smaller, lighter, and less-depth-capable portable
"flyaway" systems designed for opportunistic use aboard a range of vessels, there will be an
operating (noncapital) cost each time the system is mobilized and installed and then Reinstalled,
demobilized, and refurbished. The support vessel options and geographic flexibility attributed
to this type of system must trade off against the lesser capability, but they certainly are appropri-
ate for a significant number of applications.
TABLE 8.3 Capitalization of Commercial Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs)
ROV Class Task
Depth (m) Horsepower Approximate cost ($ million)
Observation Observation
300 1-20 0.01-0.10
Medium Observation, medium work 2,000 25-50 1-2
Heavy Heavy work
3,000 75-150 2.5-3.5
OCR for page 146
146
EXPLORATION OF THE SEAS
Oceanographic Institution's Johnson-Sea-Link submersibles. For deeper
HOV applications, the United States can only reach a depth of 4,500 m.
Russia, Japan, and France have better capabilities (Table 6.1~. Plans are
being discussed to enhance the deep-submergence fleet. Currently, the
National Research Council's Committee on Future Needs in Deep Submer-
gence Science is reviewing deep-submergence needs for NSF; the final
report is expected in 2003. The cost of a 6,500 m water depth HOV is
estimated at $20 million (R. Pittenger, personal communication).
Finding: Access and flexibility are necessary to implement an ocean
exploration program. Although assets for oceanographic research
exist, a new ocean exploration program that seeks to enhance the
current efforts, as proposed in this report, will require substantial
assets. New oceanographic assets would increase the effectiveness of
the program, while minimizing interference with current research en-
deavors.
Recommendation: To undertake a truly large-scale, ocean exploration
program that would incorporate the disciplines discussed in this report,
a specialized, dedicated flagship, and a modest fleet of underwater
vehicles should be provided. Such a program would require first-year
funding of approximately ~i270 million. Thereafter, annual operating
costs would be about 51 10 million. A more moderate program, operat-
ing fewer assets, could be operated for approximately ~i70 million
annually.
Finding: The scope of the proposed ExPO office will depend on annual
funding. An important new ocean exploration program can be under-
taken at various levels, and estimates of the return on that investment
should be made accordingly. If funds are limited, the theme areas the
program seeks to address should be scaled back. This apportionment
of program initiatives will help ensure support for postcruise data
analysis and data bank maintenance and support. In any such initia-
tive, the input of the research community should be sought to assist in
identifying necessary trade-offs. The ExPO office should be respon-
sible for implementing program activities and operations congres-
sional earmarking can obstruct program integrity and success. With
broad, interdisciplinary involvement, open forums for discussion of
program goals and choices, and accountable management of the pro-
gram, a large-scale, international ocean exploration initiative is likely
OCR for page 147
SUPPORTING AN OCEAN EXPLORATION PROGRAM
to succeed in providing economic, scientific, and environmental ben-
efits for all.
Recommendation: Especially at the lower levels of funding presented
in this report, the efficient, effective use of resources must be ensured
and should involve the following:
· decision-making should be informed by the research community,
program managers and administrators, and legislators; and
· a clear statement of program goals must be used to drive the choices
of capitalization.
147
Representative terms from entire chapter:
ocean exploration
