Technology and Oceanography: An

Assessment of Federal Technologies for

Oceanographic Research and Monitoring

June 1981

NTIS order #PB82-101718
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 81-600086

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Foreword

This assessment of technologies which are supported by the Federal Government for

oceanographic research and monitoring was prepared at the request of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. It was requested to provide Congress

with a useful structure to evaluate both ongoing ocean programs and new initiatives,

especially those that involve costly and complex technologies.

The report describes the status of technologies in use today, such as research ships,

submersibles, buoy systems, aircraft, and satellites. It analyzes future problems and opportunities and examines the Federal agencies and programs charged with conducting

oceanic studies and providing the necessary management and hardware systems. It analyzes selected national programs directed toward conserving and managing marine fishery resources, developing a new oceanographic satellite system, investigating the geology

and possible resource potential of the continental margins beneath the deep ocean, and

developing a future climate-prediction capability.

OTA received valuable assistance from contractors, individual consultants, working

groups, and many expert advisors in the preparation of this assessment. Each of the

Federal ocean agencies also provided valuable descriptive material and useful review

comments. An advisory panel of experienced oceanographers and technology specialists

from academia and industry reviewed and critiqued the final draft report.

A comprehensive overview and analysis such as this report has not been available in

the past because the Federal ocean effort is distributed among so many diverse agencies.

A large number of productive and promising oceanographic programs require substantial investments in technology to address critical national concerns. Choices about the

future course of these programs and the technologies to support them will undoubtedly

require careful congressional review.

‘Director

/;/
Technology and Oceanography Assessment Advisory Panel

D. James Baker, Jr., Chairman

University of Washington

Tim P. Barnett Erik Mollo-Christensen

Scripps Institution of Oceanography Massachusetts Institute of Technology

R. Frank Busby Worth D. Nowlin

Consultant Texas A&M University

Charles L. Drake James J. O’Brien

Dartmouth College Florida State University

D. V, Holliday Marshall H. Orr

Tracer, Inc. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Charles D. Hollister Derek W. Spencer

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Paul M. Maughan T. K. Treadwell

COMSAT General Corp. Texas A&M University

Arthur Maxwell Warren S. Wooster

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution University of Washington

NOTE: The Advisory Panel provided advice and comment throughout the assessment, but the members do not necessarily approve,

disapprove, or endorse the report for which OTA assumes full responsibility.

i v
Technology and Oceanography Assessment Project Staff

Peter A. Johnson, Project Director

Prudence Adler

Administrative Staf f

Kathleen A. Beil Linda G. Wade

Consultants

Gary Baham* Leatha Miloy Denzil Pauli* Kathryn White (writer/editor)

OTA Publishing Staff

John C. Holmes, Publishing Officer

John Bergling Kathie S. Boss Debra M. Datcher Joe Henson

8

*() I A { 01)( I .1(’[ })t’1 W)ll[l(,l
Acknowledgments

Many individuals and groups have assisted in various aspects of this study, each making a valuable contribution to the information and analyses assembled and presented here. While all contributors have not agreed with all

aspects of the entire report, all views on major issues are presented. Substantial contributors include:

Fisheries and Marine Mammals

Working Group

Dayton L. Alverson

Consultant

George C. Anderson

Univcrsity of Washington

Donald E. Bevan

University of Washington

Kevin Cain

Harvard University

Douglas Chapman

University of Washington

L. Lee Eberhardt

Battelle Northwest

William J. Hargis, Jr.

Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences

Richard Hennemuth

Northeast Fisheries Center

Robert J. Hofman

Marine Mammal Commission

Sigfryed Jaeger

Fishermen’s Terminal

Joseph Kutkuhn

Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory

Reuben Lasker

Southwest Fisheries Center

John Liston

University of Washington

Ole A. Mathison

University of Washington

William J. McNeil

Oregon Aquafoods

George M. Pigott

University of Washington

William E. Rover

University of Washington

Edward Shaefers

Northwest and Alaska Fisheries

Center

Joseph Swierbinski

Harvard University

Richard E. Thorne

University of Washington

John P. Wise

National Marine Fisheries Service

Robert Wolf

National Marine Fisheries Service

Warren S. Wooster

University of Washington

Ocean Margin Drilling Panel

Joseph R. Curray

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Charles L. Drake

Dartmouth College

James Hays

Columbia University

John Imbrie

Brown University

Feenan D. Jennings

Texas A&M [University

John G. Sclater

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Tjeerd H. VanAndel

Stanford University

NOSS Review Group

Tim P. Barnett

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Erik Mollo-Christensen

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Robert Edwards

Northeast Fisheries Center

Glen Flittner

National Weather Service

John Hussey

NOAA

Robert Johnson

NASA

Paul Maughan

COMSAT General Corp.

Ray Mayer

Oceanroutes, Inc .

Bill Siapno

Deepsea Ventures, Inc.

Stanley Wilson

NASA

Technology Working Group

Eric B. Krauss

University of Miami

Erik Mono-Christensen

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Marshall H. Orr

Woods Hole Oceanographic

Institution

Research Ships Review Group

Alfred M. Beeton

University of Michigan

Robert Dinsmore

Woods Hole Oceanographic

Institution

Dennis F. Hayes

Lamont -Doherty Geological

Observatory of Columbia

University

C. Ross Heath

Oregon State (University

Richard Popovici

Raytheon Co.

T. K. Treadwell

Texas A&M University

Warren S. Wooster

University of Washington

Climate Research Working

D. James Baker

University of Washington

Tim P. Barnett

Group

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

James J. O’Brien

Florida State University

Special Technical Consultants

R. Frank Busby (Submersibles)

Walt McCandless (Ocean Satellites)

Robert Taggart (Ocean Drilling)

Agencies Providing Both Original

Material and Reviews

Department of Commerce NOAA

Department of Interior

Department of Transportation U.S.

Coast Guard

Department of Energy

Department of Defense U.S. Navy

Environmental Protection

Administration

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

National Science Foundation

VI
Contents

Chapter Pag e

1.

2.

3.

4.

SUMMARY AND FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ .

Agencies, Programs, and Budgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ “

Critical Review of Selected National Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

AGENCIES, PROGRAMS, AND BUDGETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Current Program Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Budgets and Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DISCUSSION OF TECHNOLOGIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ . “ . “ “

Ships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Submersibles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ .

Buoy, Moored, and Ocean-Floor Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Equipment and Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Satellites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ “ . “ “ “ “

Aircraft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ocean Data Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

SELECTED NATIONAL PROGRAMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

3

4

6

10

17

27

28

29

33

41

41

46

64

75

84

91

101

105

110

115

Ocean Margin Drilling Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Oceanic Satellite System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,

116

1 2 5

Fisheries and Living Resources Research Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

The Climate Research Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....151

List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

///

Contents

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Agencies, Programs, and Budgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary . . , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Findings- Agencies, Programs, and Budgets. . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Findings Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Critical Review of Selected National Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ocean Margin Drilling Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Oceanic Satellite System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fisheries and Marine Mammals Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Climate Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ocean Technology Development , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oceanic Data Systems . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ships. . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Satellite Oceanography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE

3

4

4

5

6

6

9

10

10

12

14

15

17

18

20

21

23

Page

Estimated Expenditures of Federal Marine Programs: by Agency-- by Category

Fiscal Year 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Chapter 1

Summary and Findings

,

OVERVIEW

In the past two decades oceanography has

yielded a treasure of knowledge about the ocean

and its resources. Once viewed as relatively static,

the ocean is now seen as a dynamic environment

actively affecting climate, geology, food and resource supply, and environmental quality. Continued research and monitoring of the ocean to

understand further its influence on the Earth has

become a vital endeavor.

Oceanography itself is a large, diversified field

of investigation, encompassing many disciplines.

In this report, the term oceanography includes

all of the federally supported activities (except

classified military work) that involve collecting

data about the oceans and conducting experiments in the oceans. These activities range from

standard surveys needed for producing maps and

charts, to data collection on the sea surface or

above for weather predictions, to basic research

or experiments conducted by universities and

Federal agencies on marine biology, chemistry,

geology, geophysics, meteorology, and physical

oceanography.

Determining how to manage such oceanographic activities, however, involves considerations not present 20 years ago. For, in addition to

new information, the thrust in oceanography has

generated new programs and technologies, dramatically changing the practice of ocean science

and data collection. Scientists no longer work in

isolated groups, using simple equipment. Instead, research teams from Government, industry, and academia share information gathered

from technologies ranging broadly in complexity

from sample bottles to satellites. Oceanographic

programs now require long-range planning, considerable funding, sophisticated data management and analysis, specialized personnel, and

coordination of effort among agencies whose program functions and needs frequently overlap. Increasingly, oceanographic research involves international cooperation particularly in global

monitoring efforts such as those needed for

climate studies.

Federally funded ocean research is conducted

by private research institutions, universities, and

Federal agencies — all with varying goals and

functions. These organizations use a variety of

oceanographic technology, defined for this assessment as stations, vehicles, instruments, and

equipment used in oceanography. This includes

completely engineered systems, innovative technologies, and new inventions as well as adaptations of equipment originally developed for other

fields.

This report details the OTA assessment of

present capabilities and future needs for federally

funded ocean research, surveying, and monitoring. The assessment focuses primarily on the programs of the eight Federal agencies most actively

engaged in oceanography, and it addresses the

problems of effectively and economically

using and maintaining appropriate oceanographic technology.

To complete the assessment, OTA requested

that each Federal agency engaged in oceanographic research provide a description of its present programs, budgets, and plans, particularly as

they related to providing technology for oceanographic research and data collection. The responses from these agencies provided the necessary information base for this assessment. Subsequent analyses of technologies and selected national programs provided the assessment findings

and identification of issues.

Some agencies were not included in the assessment—in particular, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Maritime Administration in the

Department of Commerce. The missions of these

two agencies were considered of only marginal

relevance to the principal subjects addressed.

Although the Corps of Engineers was not covered

in the program discussions, some of its work is

3
4 ● Technology and Oceanography

noted in this report where appropriate. Military tant topics discussed later in detail, and the findsystems and classified information were not cov- ings are from the analyses performed during this

ered at all. The following sections are summaries assessment. References and other documentation

of and findings from each of the major chapters appear in the subsequent chapters.

in this report. The summaries highlight imporAGENCIES, PROGRAMS, AND BUDGETS

Summary

To conduct systematic and reliable oceanographic studies, the Federal Government has a

sizable investment in programs and supporting

technology. At present, the Federal ocean effort

consists of approximately 90 programs conducted

primarily by the following eight Federal agencies:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

U.S. Coast Guard (Department of Transportation),

Department of Energy (DOE),

Department of the Interior (DOI),

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

National Aeronautics and Space Adminis- ‘

tration (NASA),

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (Department of Commerce),

National Science Foundation (NSF), and

U.S. Navy (Department of Defense).

The oceanographic programs conducted by

these agencies receive varying levels of emphasis.

To simplify a review of the large number of ocean

programs, OTA has classified them into nine

broad categories according to their primary

emphases:

●

●

●

●

Technology Development programs created

specifically to provide technological support

to Federal programs in oceanography, including the design, construction, testing,

and deployment of hardware and other

equipment.

Ocean science programs to advance scientific knowledge.

Weather and climate programs dealing

with the collection and analysis of oceanic

and atmospheric data.

Energy and mineral resources programs to

●

●

●

●

●

explore and develop nonliving natural resources for the ocean.

Environmental quallity programs to improve or enhance the quality of the oceans,

Great Lakes, and coastal regions.

Fisheries resources programs to develop

food resources from the oceans and the

Great Lakes.

Public service programs organized especially to communicate with the public and to

assist the public in the solution of oceanrelated problems, including marine safety.

Managemen t and enforcementt programs

to manage or assist in managing marine resources or to enforce laws and regulations

pertaining to the coastal and ocean environments.

Agency support programs to support either

the efforts and missions of the agency in

which they are located or the efforts of other

Federal agencies,

Since many programs perform tasks outside

their primary missions, a single classification does

not always adequately represent a total program.

For example, some agencies support general

technology development efforts, while others,

like the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard, have

strong technology development programs which

are directed only toward their own mission needs.

The interdependence of programing and technology creates problems for Federal agencies

when programs identify needed technologies that

require many years of development to become

operational. Such long leadtimes mean that

agencies need to engage in long-range planning

for research and to demand close cooperation

among prospective technology users.
Ch. l—Summary and Findings 5

Estimated Expenditures of Federal Marine Programs: by Agency–by Category-Fiscal Year 1980

(in millions of dollars)

Agency

Coast

Category Guard DOE DOI EPA NASA NOAA NSF Navy Total

Agency support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — $ 2 $ 70 $ 4 – $ 68 – $139 $283

Energy and mineral resources . . . . . . . . . 43 44 — — — — —

$ 1= 18

87

Environmental quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 28 – 20 – – 206

Fishery resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 12 — — 45 — —

Management and enforcement . . . . . . . . 477 — 41 — — 130 648

Ocean science. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — 4 $106 88 198

Public service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 686 – 19 — 214 — — 919

Technology development. . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 – – – $24 13 – 10 106

Weather and climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — 20 – – 20

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,358 $ 63 $190 $ 32 $ 24 $514 $106 $237 $2,524

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment

Through the review and budget process, Congress exercises its authority to continue support of

ongoing programs, to redirect Federal efforts, to

initiate new programs, and to discontinue existing programs. In fiscal year 1980 the total Federal expenditure for ocean programs studied by

OTA was $2.5 billion. Three agencies–Coast

Guard, NOAA, and Navy– accounted for over

80 percent of that total. Based on funding, the

principal program areas of emphasis for each

agency appear to be as follows:

Ž Coast Guard — public service, management

and enforcement;

● DOE — energy and mineral resources, environmental quality;

● EPA —environmental quality;

● DOI — agency support, energy and mineral

resources, management and enforcement;

● NASA — technology development;

● Navy —ocean science, agency support;

● NOAA — public service, management and

enforcement, weather and climate, fisheries resources, agency support;

● NSF— ocean science.

Findings-Agencies, Program,

and Budgets

● The 90 programs in the total Federal ocean effort are often scattered among different agencies whose missions or goals appear very similar. Overlap and duplication of effort does oc-

●

●

●

●

cur in some areas OTA has studied and is very

difficult to identify.

Of the total Federal expenditure of $2.5 billion

for the ocean programs studied by OTA, 30

percent was spent for the technology, science,

and applied research programs that this report

addresses.

With the exception of technology in the military sector and of satellites in NASA, development of new technology that can be used by

a wide range of users in different programs and

agencies is not focused in any one agency.

There is no consistency among agencies in

their plans for future program or capital expenditures. Some agency plans include an inflation factor, and some do not. Some agencies

plan for possible future technology needs,

while others do not include any new expenditures in their plans until a new item is firm.

Some program plans include substantial contingencies and related activities, while others

do not.

From the information on future plans for technology and oceanography, provided to OTA

by the eight agencies surveyed, OTA identified

only two new initiatives — the Ocean Margin

Drilling Program and the National Oceanic

Satellite System–which include plans for substantial technology and funding requirements.

Other proposed programs, like the climate

program, have yet to establish such requirements, but must nevertheless be considered

when planning future budgets.
6 . Technology and Oceanography

TECHNOLOGY

Summary

Oceanographic research is complex, and no

single technology system is best suited for its

tasks. Thus, a combination of types of systems

and techniques is usually the best approach for

collecting ocean data and for conducting research experiments.

Federally supported technology systems used in

oceanography include:

ships

submersibles

remotely operated vehicles

buoys and moored systems

equipment and instrumentation

satellites

aircraft

oceanic data systems

Ocean research covers such a broad spectrum

of activities that no logical generalizations can be

applied when comparing the suitability or cost effectiveness of different technologies. Therefore,

various ships, other vehicles, and instrument

systems can only be evaluated in the context of

specific research tasks to be accomplished.

A few concepts regarding various technologies

can be explored, however, when comparing

scales of space and time, when comparing research experiments to routine data collection,

and when comparing basic research to applied

research.

Ships are the only general-purpose vehicles for

carrying oceanographers to sea to conduct experiments. They are both transport vehicles and

floating laboratories, with living accommodations for scientists and crew. They are necessary

for taking physical and chemical samples of the

ocean, the sea floor, and the biota; for deploying

instruments in the ocean environment; and for

collecting data over a large ocean area, as in

making subbottom profiles of the geology beneath the sea floor. In addition, ships are used to

implant and support other vehicles, submersibles, data buoys, remotely operated stations

(fixed or floating), and diving systems.

The federally supported oceanographic fleet of

about 80 ships is comprised of a variety of types

and capabilities and is supported by many agencies and programs. It is a fleet in name only

because the ships have a variety of operating

systems and their categories of use are usually not

interchangeable.

Submersibles are vehicles that can carry a few

scientists and instruments to the ocean bottom.

They are invaluable for conducting experiments

where human observers “on the spot” in the

ocean are most important. In the past decade,

submersibles were considered the most promising

research tool of the future and much successful

research was done with them. Today, only one

manned, deep-diving submersible, the Alvin,

is federally supported for nonmilitary research

but studies of future submersible needs are

underway.

Remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) cover a

variety of unmanned, underwater vehicles controlled from the surface. They are used for many

specialized tasks and are recently becoming of increasing value for oceanographic research and

monitoring.

Buoys and moored systems capable of unmanned data collection are used most often when

instruments must be placed in the ocean to collect data at and below the surface over a long period of time. They are thus invaluable for certain

kinds of meteorological and oceanographic observations. Self-sustained, special-purpose buoys

and moored systems have at times been developed

as the principal technology for a research program, while in other cases they are part of the

more standard oceanographic equipment and instrumentation carried aboard research ships.

Oceanographic equipment and instrumentation include many kinds of items, from shipboard-installed equipment and portable instruments handled from ships to permanently

mounted sensors aboard buoys and other stations. Shipboard equipment includes winches,

cables, cranes, and laboratory facilities. Multipurpose research ships, contain a combination of
Ch. l—Summary and Findings ● 7
8 ● Technology and Oceanography

fixed equipment, permanent instrumentation,

and special instruments for each experiment.

Single-purpose data buoys have built-in permanent instruments and data-handling systems.

Thousands of separate oceanographic instruments are in use today. Standard shipboard instrumentation includes navigation equipment

and some meteorological and standard ocean

parameter sensors. Because many ships, such as

those of the academic fleet, are now used by

scientists for a large variety of research projects,

it has become prudent to provide guidelines for

standardization of some equipment and onboard

data systems.

Satellites provide worldwide coverage of ocean

surfaces and can provide data on a timely basis.

Limited at present to covering sea-surface phenomena, new satellite instruments will give more

comprehensive and accurate information. Certain surface phenomena related to large-scale

ocean processes, sea-surface data on a global

grid, and other large-scale ocean research can

only be accomplished at reasonable cost by satellite. As valuable ancillary tools, satellites are

routinely used for navigation and data-transmission purposes.

Aircraft are used less in ocean research, but

their coverage and speed of data taking are valuable for laying a line of air-droppable instruments, detecting ocean pollutants, measuring

gravitational and magnetic fields, measuring seasurface conditions with high resolution, investigating hurricanes, and conducting research on

marine mammals.

Oceanic data systems include the data handling, archiving, processing, and disseminating

networks that now provide services to Federal

agencies and other users. Most oceanographic

data from satellites, ships, buoys, and other

sources are archived by NOAA’s Environmental

Data and Information Services. The recent large

flow of satellite data into the existing system has

called attention to the growing problem of providing modern technology and adequate management systems for the handling of oceanic

data.

This report does not cover certain categories of

ocean technology that either are not a significant

part of existing Federal programs or are ancillary

to this study’s focus on major systems used in the

field. Some examples of such ocean technology

which may be significant to many future programs are sail-powered ships, satellite data telemetry and communication systems, satellite

navigation systems, and computers. Studies within the agencies and the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council address future

needs for these technologies.
Ch. l—Summary and Findtngs ● 9

Findings-Technology

● Ships are the vehicles from which most research on the ocean has been conducted. The

addition of new ways to examine the ocean has

not replaced the need for ships, but has instead

identified new and more productive ways to

use these vessels.

● The Federal research and survey fleet is facing

a shortage of ship operating funds. Fuel, maintenance, and overhaul costs are all escalating

rapidly. NSF may be forced to reprogram capital funds to operating accounts and/or to layup more ships now in the academic fleet.

● There is a general erosion of capabilities in the

Federal fleet which will probably continue in

the future. The number of ships in the fleet is

decreasing, and ships are not being adequately

maintained or upgraded. The erosion of capability is most apparent in deepwater academic

ships but extends to all vessels and affects their

general condition and the instrumentation and

equipment on board.

● Over the next 20 years, the Federal fleet of

about 80 ships will require replacement or major rehabilitation. The replacement cost for

these ships is about $1.5 billion in 1980 dollars.

The two largest fleet groups are the NOAA

fleet and the academic fleet, which is operated

by various oceanographic institutions. The

NOAA fleet is generally older and may require

earlier attention to replacement or rehabilitation.

Ž Many ocean research programs require cooperative efforts between countries and thus coordination of capabilities. The total number of

oceanographic ships operated by other countries is difficult to determine precisely because

many are used for several other purposes.

However, OTA has determined that together

the U.S.S.R. and the United States operate

about 60 percent of the total oceanographic

research and survey ships in the world. Only

the Russian fleet equals that of the United

States in number of ships, and in fact, exceeds

it in number of large ships.

It appears that, in the future, increased attention will be given to remotely operated and

other unmanned vehicles, buoy systems and

moored systems, as appropriate, for many specialized ocean data collection and monitoring

tasks. New data links with satellites are making

buoys and moored systems more useful. Advanced buoy- and moored-system technology,

developed within several research programs,

could be even more widely used by the mission

agencies.

Instrumentation for oceanography and data

collection is generally good especially for those

programs that have supported its development

and use over long periods of time. Increasing

sophistication and reliability of microelectronic technology holds promise for improved

instrument systems.

There are no dedicated oceanographic satellites in orbit today that provide coverage of the

world’s oceans with modern sensors. Seasat, an

oceanographic research satellite launched in

1978, lasted only 3 months. The Nimbus series

of research satellites that provides coastal zone

ocean data is being phased out. If the new

NOSS program is supported as planned, only

part of the Nimbus and Seasat capabilities will

be reinstated.

Aircraft continue to be used for specialized

ocean data collection and surveying in certain

programs. Some remote sensors, when used in

local areas, are more effectively employed by

aircraft than by satellite.

Existing oceanic data systems are not meeting

the research needs of many oceanographers.

New satellites and other remote-sensing systems with large data volume potential will

make this problem more critical in the future.

80-710 0 - 81 - 2
10 . Technology and Oceanography

CRITICAL REVIEW OF SELECTED

NATIONAL PROGRAMS

This assessment has identified for special

analysis the following four national programs

that are representative of the institutional and

technological opportunities and problems facing

Federal efforts in oceanography.

● Ocean Margin Drilling Program (OMDP)

● National Oceanic Satellite System (NOSS)

● Federal Program in Fisheries and Marine

Mammals

● National Climate Program

Two of these – OMDP and NOSS – are major

new ocean program initiatives for fiscal year

1981. The drilling program is principally a scientific endeavor with unique private industry participation. NOSS combines the operational needs

of military and civilian satellite mission agencies

with related scientific investigations. Both programs involve large, new technology systems.

The other two programs exist by congressional

mandate. The first, the Federal Program in

Fisheries and Marine Mammals, has been in

place for a long time, but new legislation has

forced its research to be directed more toward

resource management problems. The second, the

National Climate Program, has been recently directed by legislation to address national needs for

delivery of a climate prediction capability and

public services that result from that capability.

The technology required for each program is a

mixture of conventional systems in use for a long

time and new developments. The latter could significantly advance future research.

Many other national programs, such as those

in marine pollution, offshore energy development, or ocean minerals, could be addressed in a

similar manner, and it is hoped that this review

will help identify a useful structure for future

analyses.

Ocean Margin Drilling Program

Summary

To gain more knowledge of the nature and origin of the Earth, NSF has begun an important

new $700 million, 10-year scientific program of

marine geologic investigations. This effort,

known as the Ocean Margin Drilling Program

(OMDP), resulted from years of planning and

evaluation by academic and Government-sponsored committees. It is both a continuation of

deep-ocean drilling under NSF’s Division of

Earth Sciences and a new thrust to investigate the

geology of continental margins and ocean crust

where very deep drilling is necessary to penetrate

unknown regions. Some of the margin regions

that are the borders between Continental Shelves

and the deep ocean might contain substantial oil

and gas resources, but sufficient evidence has not

yet been collected to confirm this.

The success of OMDP is contingent on major

development of advanced ocean technology, such

as deep-drilling, coring, and well-control techniques and hardware. It will be necessary to focus

a considerable effort on technology development

in the early stages of this program in order to

assure that its science goals can be accomplished.

Early planning for an ocean margin drilling

program began in 1973 and continued with the

Conference on the Future of Scientific Ocean

Drilling held in Woods Hole, Mass., in 1977. In

1978 an NSF advisory group reviewed the scientific merit of an ocean margin drilling program,

and in 1979 an NSF blue-ribbon committee addressed the national interest in such an effort.

More recently, at an NSF-sponsored meeting in

March 1980, an initial ocean margin drilling

model program plan was developed. That plan is

the basis of NSF’s OMDP. Scientific objectives
Ch. l—Summary and Findings . 11

stated in the plan are to investigate: 1 ) passive

and active continental margins, 2) the Earth’s

crust beneath the deep ocean, and 3) the deepsea sediments.

The model program allots 4 years for preparation and 6 years for drilling. It also presents an

estimate of program costs. The program includes

10 sites and 15 holes, the deepest of which (Southeastern Gulf of Mexico) is about 21,000-ft below

the sea floor in about 11,000 ft of water. Two

model sites are in the Pacific Ocean, one is in

Antarctica’s Weddell Sea, and others are in the

Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico.

As planned, the program will be jointly funded

by the Federal Government and the petroleum

industry, each sharing 50 percent of the costs

over the 10-year period. Several major petroleum

companies expressed interest in participating

and, by October 1980, eight had agreed to fund

the first year’s planning effort. The technology

plans include both the conversion of the Government-owned Glomar Explorer to a deep-drilling

ship as well as the development of a riser system*

for controlled drilling in maximum water depths

of 13,000 ft and in maximum depths below the

sea floor of 20,000 ft.

Findings

●

●

NSF and other Federal agencies have stressed

the unique nature of OMDP as a basic science

effort with industry support and cooperation.

Many oceanographic institutions are also participating in the planning and future management of science work.

Technology is not yet developed for controlled

drilling 20,000-ft beneath the ocean bottom in

13,000 ft of water, and engineering studies

predict many technological difficulties. The

*.A riser is a Iargediameter pipe, extending from the sea floor to

the drilling ship on the surface, through which the drill pipe is inserted. The riser acts as a conduit for drilling fluid, which is pumped

down the pipe and flows back up to the ship between the pipe and

riser. ‘1’he riser is essential for controlling pressure in the well and for

5U pport ing blowout prevention.

technological uncertainty of such deep-ocean

drilling may preclude completion of some of

the planned deep holes. Engineers and scientists will likely have to make compromises as

the program proceeds, resulting either in

lowering of the scientific objectives or in

significant cost escalations.

By July 1980, cost estimates for ship conversion

and riser development had already increased

substantially from those proposed earlier in the

year. The OTA analysis highlights concerns

that funds to cover the future additional costs

to develop deep-drilling technology might be

diverted from OMDP science or from other

NSF ocean science programs.

NSF has successfully directed the deep-sea

drilling project over the past 12 years, using an

established oceanographic institution to carry

out the day-to-day management. However,

OMDP involves a major funding increase and

a new thrust in technology development from

previous efforts in deep-sea drilling. Thus,

OTA questions the capability and appropriateness of NSF to directly manage the more

complex OMDP. The questions include whether NSF is the most appropriate organization to

manage the considerable technology development work, whether aspects of the oil and gas

resources should dictate more direct involvement by DOE or U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS), and whether the science benefits are

overshadowed by the technology development

benefits.

A more sharply focused science program with

fewer options than the present plan is advocated by several industry and academic scientists contacted by OTA during its preparation

of a technical memorandum on this subject in

May 1980. These scientists suggested alternatives that might result in lower initial costs

and a postponement of the decision to fund

major technology developments. Many of these

alternatives include an approach to identify

first those drilling targets that are within pres-
12 . Technology and Oceanography

ent technical capabilities. Other alternatives

involved a greater emphasis on hydrocarbon

resources (thus increasing industry involvement), but would probably require considerable changes in Government practices in leasing offshore lands for oil and gas exploration.

National Oceanic Satellite System

Summary

A major new 10-year effort, the National

Oceanic Satellite System (NOSS), was scheduled

to commence in fiscal year 1981 but the new administration has recommended a substantial

budget cut and delay. Funded jointly by NASA

(25 percent), NOAA (25 percent), and Navy (50

percent), this program is designed to collect and

deliver synoptic* global measurements of the

ocean to Navy and NOAA centers using an orbiting spacecraft, ground control, and data communication and processing systems.

NOSS is designed to demonstrate an operational capability for global, all-weather ocean

coverage with real-time data processing and distribution that may presage a series of oceanographic satellites in the future. Synoptic oceansurface data from NOSS could have significant

value in future programs of worldwide weather

and climate forecasting, measurement of ice

cover, measurement of surface waves and currents, forecasting of sea conditions, observations

of surface pollutants or chlorophyll, and other

oceanic observations.

NOSS has a planned 5-year demonstration

period. Launch of the first NOSS spacecraft from

the space shuttle was scheduled for the third

quarter, fiscal year 1986. Once the spacecraft

and ground systems are operational, a second

satellite will be launched (within approximately 6

to 12 months).

NOSS’s satellite will carry four basic sensors.

The technology for each of these has been developed and tested in previous research satellites,

Seasat and Nimbus. They are: a radar altimeter

to measure sea-surface height accurately and

thus provide observations of waves and sea state;

a radar scatterometer to observe windspeed and

direction at the sea surface; a microwave

radiometer to measure sea-surface temperature;

and a color scanner, which can observe different

pigmentation at the sea surface and, in turn,

distinguish optically between concentrations of

certain substances such as chlorophyll. These sensors, plus the data handling and processing network, will produce pictures, charts, and other

forms of information to be used by Navy and

NOAA to analyze and forecast weather, sea, and

other environmental conditions globally. Researchers outside of Government and industry

will also have access to the observations and data.

The systems for providing these data products,

however, are in the process of being detailed by

* A comprehensive and broad view of the whole.
Ch. l—Summary and Findings 13

Photo credit National Aeronaut/es and Space Administration

An artist’s drawing of the proposed National Oceanic Satellite System. The sensors will provide observations of waves,

sea-surface temperature, surface winds, and particles in surface water over the global oceans

the agencies and are only partially included in Findings

the program cost. ●

The total cost of the NOSS program from

fiscal years 1981 to 1991 is estimated to be $700

million to $900 million and includes the cost of a

planned demonstration period. Since some additional agency costs are not included, such as that

for end-user data distribution, the total system .

costs may approach or exceed $1 billion. These

estimates, in fiscal year 1981 dollars, contain no

allowance for inflation.

NOSS is a major new program in satellite

oceanography. If successful as a “limited operational demonstration, “ it may be the first generation in a series of satellites for collecting

global ocean data in the 1990’s and beyond.

NOSS differs from other satellite programs in

that it has all-weather capabilities and uses

sensors not used by operational meteorological

satellite programs,
14 . Technology and Oceanography

● The cost of the NOSS 10-year program, jointly

funded by NASA (25 percent), Navy (50 percent), and NOAA (25 percent), is estimated at

about $800 million. However, NOSS alone will

not provide all the satellite oceanic data required for research and operational purposes,

A complete program of satellite oceanography

will cost much more.

● The primary operational use of NOSS will be

to improve global weather and sea condition

prediction for Navy and NOAA weather service. If successful it will provide global, allweather, synoptic ocean measurements of

winds, surface waves, and sea-surface temperatures.

● Three basic NOSS sensors will provide the required operational data on winds, waveheights, and sea-surface temperature. They

are the scatterometer, the altimeter, and the

large antenna multichannel microwave radiometer (LAMMR). The scatterometer and

altimeter are proven technology while the

LAMMR requires development.

● The coastal zone color scanner is one NOSS

sensor without a clear, direct use in Navy or

NOAA operational programs. Instead, for

these two agencies, the scanner’s chlorophyll

and water-clarity measurements will be more

important for research programs. These research programs will include evaluation of

whether this sensor can obtain adequate measurements through clouds (prevalent in coastal

areas), how chlorophyll data can be used to indicate biological productivity, and how waterclarity measurements can aid other research.

● NOSS’s program office has conducted studies

to determine an optimum orbit for the satellite, given NOAA’s and Navy’s stated data

needs and given the four sensors selected. However, no detailed mission analysis has been

prepared that compares the value of other research needs to NOAA and Navy requirements

or that considers alternative orbits, sensors,

and data systems. The ongoing contracted

studies of alternatives to NOSS will not consider these major options to the planned system.

● The research mission of NOSS is limited, and

secondary to the stated agency operational

missions. Only part of the past research satellite (Seasat and Nimbus) capabilities of several

years ago will be reinstated with NOSS.

Fisheries and Marine Mammals

Research

Summary

The large and diversified Federal Program in

Fisheries and Marine Mammals is directed principally by the National Marine Fisheries Service

under NOAA at an annual cost of $50 million;

selected aspects of the program are directed by

the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department

of Interior at an annual cost of over $10 million.

Fisheries. — The Federal fisheries program is

directed toward conserving and managing U.S.

fisheries stocks, as mandated by the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. The

Act, in an attempt to alleviate overfishing of certain stocks, extended U.S. jurisdiction over fisheries to 200 miles from the coastline and specified

the establishment of Regional Fishery Management Councils to allocate and conserve fish resources for future use. The councils prepare

management plans based on scientific information principally furnished by the Federal Government about species that are or may be harvested.

The process of supplying this information focuses

and directs much of the present and future

fishery research in the United States.

The National Marine Fisheries Service within

NOAA conducts fishery research through observation and monitoring of stocks, monitoring of

commercial and recreational harvesting, investigation of fish behavior, and of environmental

and other influences. The work is carried out at

fisheries research laboratories using the 10

NOAA fisheries survey vessels and other ships

that are chartered when needed. The work at sea

involves sampling of stocks and analysis of results

by technologies that are basically adaptations of

fishing gear or biological oceanography. New

technologies are periodically tested by the fishery

researchers, and some development work is supported at individual laboratories.

Marine Mammals. –The Federal program in

marine mammals focuses on conserving marine
Ch. l—Summary and Findings ● 1 5

mammal populations by limiting harvest and by

researching and ensuring conditions that will

provide maximum productivity of various species. Research expeditions using various technologies and methods are necessary to count species

whose behavior and habitat are more variable

than those of fish. Present marine mammal research and technology are adapted from experimental programs or from other fields.

The following findings are based on analyses of

the status and trends found mainly in NOAA’s

program in fishery and marine mammals research and on analyses of the possible future programs related to krill resources in Antarctica.

Findings

. The 1976 legislation has shifted attention to

management problems and socioeconomic factors at the expense of fishery sciences and research. Future research and technology needs

are thus being shaped by the more immediate

needs of the fishery managers.

. Present technology for gathering stock assessment data on fisheries is adequate for most

current, high-priority monitoring programs,

More data on actual fish harvesting (catchdata) are needed by fishery managers, but the

limitations on getting these data are institutional, not technological. The possible future

need for more research-ship time to cover assessment of new stocks could be met by additional chartering and by upgrading existing

ship capabilities.

● The one new technology with the potential to

improve future stock assessment capabilities is

acoustic measurement. While similar technology is used for military purposes, considerable

development and applications testing is required to transfer the best techniques to the

stock assessment problem. NOAA has not yet

bridged the gap between experimental acoustics and engineering development of an operational system.

● Satellite remote sensing of ocean-surface conditions has not proven useful for stock assessment. Some satellite measurements of surface

chlorophyll or temperature may provide in-

●

●

●

direct evidence of biological productivity and

be useful for more basic research.

New technology for efficient harvesting, reduced waste of catches, better safety, improved

processing, and other factors of fish utilization

could aid the development of new fisheries by

U.S. fishermen. Some of these technologies are

now being used by foreign fishermen in the

U.S. zone. Some are necessary to make products acceptable to the U.S. market. The Federal Government has paid little attention to

this research in the past.

Krill. – Research on Antarctic krill is now

basic and exploratory. Much more basic research is needed on krill lifecycle, growth, and

behavior. Comprehensive survey techniques

for data collection, evaluation, and reporting

must be developed and standardized to better

understand the role of krill in its ecosystem. It

is probably premature to establish a major

stock assessment program for krill until more

harvesting tests are monitored and more basic

research is done.

Marine Mammals. – The Federal Government

must invest major funds if it is to comply with

many of the specifications of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Past funding limitations have constrained methodological research and technological development; slowed

data acquisition, analysis, and distribution;

and created shortages of necessary equipment

and manpower. A major technological difficulty is the current lack of suitable, welldesigned survey ships and aircraft for largescale surveys.

National Climate Program

Summary

The ability to forecast climate on a seasonal,

annual, or longer-range basis requires not only

an understanding of the effects of the ocean on

climate, but also information from global monitoring of selected oceanic parameters over many

years.

Precisely how the oceans affect future atmospheric conditions is not known. It is known
16 . Technology and Oceanography

that the oceans are a major heat-energy source

for the atmosphere, that the oceans absorb and

release carbon dioxide (C02

), and that air-sea interactions play an important role in climate

dynamics.

Scientists around the world have been studying

aspects of the ocean’s role in climate and can

predict some climatic fluctuations over land

based on variations in conditions in the oceans.

During the 1980’s scientists will begin a global effort to understand climate dynamics. The National Climate Program plan and the World

Climate Research Program are parts of this effort.

In compliance with the National Climate Act

of 1978, Federal agency scientists have proposed

a variety of planning and feasibility studies and

field experiments to determine what factors control climate and to determine how best to study

the ocean’s role. These studies are generally not

adequately funded for technology development.

Moreover, since the National Climate Program is

in its initial stages, there is no well-defined,

broad statement of its technology requirements,

although present programs are doing the scienPhoto credit: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

The full Earth disk, with the Western Hemisphere

artificially outlined for reference, shows global weather

patterns from a geostationary satellite

tific planning necessary for the establishment of

such requirements. Substantial increases in technology funding for climate studies will probably

be required by the mid- to late 1980’s if the

research plans gain agency and congressional

support.

The National Climate Program is managed by

the individual agencies that have climate research activities. While the National Climate

Program Office was established to coordinate

these interagency activities, it does not presently

have sufficient resources to effect this coordination and to initiate action to fill the inevitable

gaps between the diverse agency programs. It

also lacks overall authority to direct a coordinated research program.

On an international level, the World Climate

Research Program is expected to provide the required degree of coordination among countries.

The U.S. interest in an international research effort was expressed in the National Climate Program Act of 1978. As the needed research is more

specifically defined, both costs and benefits of

these efforts can be evaluated.

Findings

●

●

●

Because climate research is still in the planning

stage, there is no comprehensive statement of

its technology needs. However, there are ocean

technology needs in communication and data

processing that, if met, could play a major, immediate role in understanding climate dynamics.

One or more dedicated centers and a dedicated computer for the collection, processing,

and distribution of future climate-related data

would lead to a much improved capability to

analyze climate dynamics.

A mix of sensors and vessels, such as ships-ofopportunity, * drifting buoys, and arrays of

moorings, will be needed to measure oceanic

heat storage. This mix will necessitate an expanded and improved data collection and coordination system.

*Commercial ships or other \’csx>l\ Ilot [lor ITldl ]} t’ll<<d,<t’(i 111

txxanography but which <’an ht. used to tnakc rout I m> mcdsu I ements

or launch a utomatd xnsors.
Ch. l—Summary and Findings . 17

● Four general areas of technology needs for

future climate research are listed below, along

with examples of specific technology development or use that appear to be of highest priority based on OTA’s analysis of program needs.

1. Stations:

–Organization of a worldwide ships-ofopportunity data collection program, including a satellite data network and centralized data-processing center.

–Substantial improvements and cost reductions in expendable buoys and probes.

–A commitment to long-term, moored stations. (Many of the existing long-term stations, on which much of our current

knowledge of ocean climate is based, are

being closed for economic considerations. )

2. In situ sensors:

– New types of upper-ocean-current sensors

that would be used to collect data to

evaluate the manner in which the ocean

moves heat from the tropics to the high

latitudes.

– Improved, cost-effective sensors for measuring temperature, salinity, and velocity

from fixed moorings.

– Improved, cost-effective sensors for measuring profiles of ocean temperature, salinity, and velocity as part of the worldwide

ships-of-opportunity program.

– New technology for measuring the humidity content in the atmospheric boundary

layer near the ocean surface.

–Sensors that measure various trace gas

constituents such as C02

.

3. Satellite sensors:

–Technology for measuring the global

windfields, useful for describing and predicting the oceanic variations that can affect atmospheric changes. (It may be

possible to make the necessary measurements using satellite instrumentation such

as that proposed for NOSS. )

–Satellite capability to determine surface

currents and precipitation on the time

and space scales appropriate to climate.

–Satellite systems that transmit in situ

measurements using the same data stream

as measurements from satellites themselves.

4. Data management:

– The anticipated flood of data from satellite sensors will require major efforts to

upgrade data management and handling

capabilities to retain existing satellite

data, to merge historical data of various

types with satellite data, and to provide

easy and economical access to data bases.

ISSUES

Whether new oceanographic research programs can gain adequate support for needed

technology depends not only on the program

needs, but also on whether the technology itself

has adequate support. For many oceanographic

programs adequate mechanisms have not been

developed to satisfy technology needs through

either the adaption of existing technology or the

development of new technology. It is very difficult to provide technological support for science

programs when the science has broad or diffuse

goals and objectives.

Four important issues concerning Federal activities in technology and oceanography have

been identified through this assessment. These

issues cover subjects of significant controversy

about how technology is provided now or how it

may be supported in the future to meet diverse

Federal goals and missions in oceanography.

They cover overall institutional considerations

and technological subjects. The issue discussions

provide a basis for congressional actions such as

oversight, budget review, or new legislative initiatives.

The issues are, briefly:

1. Ocean Technology Development. –

Whether a larger and more centralized

ocean engineering effort within one or

more Federal agencies would significantly
18 . Technology and Oceanography

2.

3.

4.

improve future ocean technology development.

Oceanic Data Systems. – Whether the

growing need to handle and distribute increasingly large volumes of oceanic data to

a variety of users can be met effectively

within existing agencies or will merit some

new institutional arrangement.

Ships. –Whether the unique capabilities

of the Federal fleet of research and survey

ships will be adequately maintained or improved in the future.

Satellite Oceanography. –Whether the

benefits of a major new thrust in satellite

oceanography warrant the substantial

funding and long-range planning entailed

in establishing and maintaining such programs.

Ocean Technology Development

Issue

There is no effective and comprehensive nonmilitary effort to plan and coordinate the

development of new technologies that would advance many major Federal ocean programs. A

strong, centralized ocean technology organization has been proposed by several past studies,

but many researchers and administrators strongly

oppose such a concept. However, most agree that

ocean engineering capabilities are inadequate

and that important technology development

work is not receiving needed attention in some

key Federal agencies.

Discussion

The extent to which ocean engineering capabilities within nonmilitary Federal agencies can

be improved and to which ocean technology development can be made responsive to Federal

ocean program needs will depend on future institutional changes. At present, Navy and Coast

Guard have substantial ocean engineering efforts

directed toward their own operational missions

and related research. NASA conducts significant

technology development programs, but its mission is basically to transfer space-related

technologies, when developed, to other agencies.

NOAA and other agencies develop some technologies, but their engineering development efforts

do not often even meet their own program needs.

Numerous studies have proposed establishing a

more capable ocean technology organization

within the Federal Government. Proposals have

ranged from “centralizing the technological

development programs and projects of all civil

agencies in a single organization” to simply establishing “an interagency coordinating unit” to aid

in the transfer of technology among agencies.

Two reports that are often cited for recommending a central technological organization are the

“Panel Reports of the Commission on Marine

Science, Engineering, and Resources” of 1969

and the 1974 National Advisory Committee on

Oceans and Atmosphere report, “Engineering in

the Ocean. ” Another, the September 1980 report, “Federal Ocean Engineering, ” by the Committee on Atmosphere and Oceans, recoin -

mended establishing a Federal ocean engineering

strategy group to foster communications and to

focus Federal technology development work on

some key neglected areas, such as polar and

deepwater research.

Centralization of technology development

within each agency or among agencies, is supported by some who claim that focusing more authority and funding in one office could alleviate

the frustrating experiences of trying to initiate

promising new techniques amid a bureaucratic

maze of unclear authority, funding inflexibility,

and a shortage of specific technical experts. Such

centralization could theoretically:

1.

2,

3.

Provide a technically superior organization

that can direct the solutions to a wide range

of problems associated with carrying out

agency missions.

Provide the mechanisms and focal point

for advancing ocean technology through

grants and contracts and by use of the most

qualified Government technical organizations.

Provide central budgeting and funding

with major program line items for:

–defined mission and program-oriented

technological projects;
Ch. l—Summary and Findings ● 1 9

–projects that are needed to advance the

state of the art; and

– projects that would help bring promising

experimental equipment into routine use

through engineering development.

Ocean technology developments must be tested

at unique sea and shore facilities. Since these

facilities are used intermittently, some savings

could be made through use of more efficient and

more centralized facilities or by combining organizations that need the facilities. Moreover, centralization of technology development may induce a more economic use of staffs that have specific and sufficient technology experience and of

project management that has the expertise necessary to raise critical questions and to avoid large

and expensive omissions.

Centralization of technology development can

also have serious drawbacks. The user of the

technology is generally concerned that the centralized organization will not give his problem

the attention that it deserves. Also, with the funds

not under his control, he cannot control project

expenditures in the development and testing

processes. If the technology development problem is removed from the organization that needs

the equipment, there is a risk of not meeting the

real needs of the scientist. Small engineering

tasks may have high priority within a specific

research project, but low priority within a central

technology organization. Finally, there are concerns that a large organization cannot meet the

needs of the various smaller organizations; that

adequate funding will not be provided for each

project when budget priorities are set; and that

one office cannot provide for both direct mission

support, and the development of more basic technology.

There are many ways that technology centralization can be accomplished. One would be to

establish a central interagency organization.

Many believe that this option would be worse

than the existing system because no agency has

developed the required expertise to be so designated. Another approach, intra-agency centralization, would be a scaling down of the central

concept in that it would consider only an individual agency’s technological needs. To a limited

degree, many such offices now exist, although

they do not all have the required staff capabilities. In NOAA, a new Ocean Technology and

Engineering Service (OTES) has been established

to centralize technology development, however,

it appears that some of NOAA’s technology

needs, such as fishery technology, are not considered in OTES. In Navy, ocean technology is

important — and often of differing character — in

almost every segment of Navy’s research, development, and test programs. Thus, each of

these programs has an ocean engineering component. In many other agencies, centralization of

ocean technology development is done generally

by discipline or by specific mission.

Centralization of technology development by

discipline occurs within several Federal organizations by grouping both personnel and facilities.

For example, Navy’s towing basin has served

other Federal agencies. Similarly, the Sandia

Corp. Laboratory conducts measurements of seismicity for DOE and other agencies. The submarine and manned-diving technologies of Navy

have been shared with many agencies. NOAA has

become a focal point for scuba and saturation

diving for scientific purposes. In addition, all

agencies have some technology development offices that serve the principal missions. In certain cases a technology development project is

passed to another agency, certain ocean technology development activities of EPA are passed

to NOAA for execution. But these established

practices fall short of an effective technology

development effort to meet important ocean

science and monitoring needs in the future.

Short of a Presidential mandate, congressional

initiatives may be necessary to make the needed

institutional changes and improvements because

interagency coordination on budgets and mission

authority is difficult to achieve otherwise. For example, Congress could establish a central office

to support future ocean technology development

in one or more agencies with authority to provide

the expertise and project management capabilities for specific missions or program needs,

Through oversight, Congress could call for an

evaluation of specific technology development

needs that are not being met within the major

ocean agencies by those ocean engineering offices
20 ● Technology and Oceanography

now established. This evaluation would lead to

the identification of neglected areas an d

priorities of programs for technology development. As another option, Congress could establish an interagency ocean engineering strategy

group (as recommended by the Committee on the

Atmosphere and Oceans) with authority for technology transfer and other productive coordinating functions.

There is no way to centralize technology

development adequately to meet the individual

needs of every program and agency. Direct communications between the programs needing technology and the developers of technology is most

important. Flexibility in funding is also necessary

for accelerating the innovation and bridging

process of converting experimental equipment to

operational systems. And of utmost concern is

assuring the availability of highly qualified personnel in each department or agency for critical

program assessment and for focusing on promising directions in technology development.

Issue

Federal

Oceanic Data Systems

programs have not given adequate attention to the handling and distribution of

oceanographic data, collected at great expense to

the public. Large amounts of data are stored

unused because their nonstandardized formats

are incompatible with user needs and because

they are difficult to retrieve from the archives.

These difficulties hamper much oceanographic

research. Accordingly, many researchers and

private groups recommend that funds and plans

for data management and distribution beyond

the primary agency users be included in major

data collection programs. At present, however,

only primary data networks are included within

specific programs.

Discussion

Although several Federal agencies are involved

in the collection of oceanographic data, NOAA’s

Environmental Data and Information Service

(EDIS) is the agency specifically created to maintain data and information for use by Federal,

State, and local agencies and the general public,

Most oceanographic data is archived in either the

National Oceanographic Data Center or the Satellite Data Services Division, part of EDIS.

OTA has identified a growing need for more

current, near real-time environmental data in

almost all major ocean research programs.

NOAA representatives have stated, however, that

EDIS has the responsibility for supplying only

retrospective data to users; it does not have

responsibility for the distribution of real-time

data. In essence, then, EDIS manages only the

archiving of the data stream. The other agencies

and contractors that originate the data have the

responsibility for data documentation and quality control. As NOAA indicated:

. . . problems are far greater in obtaining documented, quality-assured data from data originators than . . . in processing it into and out of

archives.

Because planning and budgeting for both archiving and distributing retrospective data is not

closely tied to similar planning for data acquisition, projects of major significance and cost have

been funded without adequate resources for

handling and distributing the resultant data.

Then, the major question is: Who really should

have the Federal responsibility for comprehensive

oceanographic data management? At present,

the NOAA archives seem to be unable to handle

the present digital data stream from existing collection systems in a near real-time environment.

New programs like NOSS that generate new data

streams will only exacerbate this problem. In

fact, NOAA is planning to implement a major

new data management system as an adjunct to

the NOSS program. Handling increased data

volume requires new organizations and management methods for data cataloging, storage, archiving, processing, and distribution.

A related issue is defining the role of the

Federal Government in providing services and

software to make oceanographic data available to

researchers in the scientific community, the commercial sector, and the general public. Future

trends in data-processing technology indicate a

large increase in the use of electronic data

transmission, processing, and display. With only

Federal archival and retrospective data responsibility clearly defined, there may be a gap in
Ch. l—Summary and Findings ● 21

management responsibility which is filled on an

uneven basis by each Federal agency with an

operational mission.

Management systems and networks for future

data handling could take various forms. A trend

toward establishing regional data networks and

distribution centers has been underway for some

time by large, commercial firms for their own

private work. It appears likely that regional networking of Federal oceanographic data systems

may also be effective. If data management

responsibility were centralized in one place, it

might ensure easier planning and budgeting for

future needs and might accommodate more effectively the needs of individuals and other small

users. If data management responsibility and

funds are not given to a Federal agency, this may

be an incentive to commercial data networks or

private institutions to operate data networks for

a fee.

There are two steps that could be taken to

make oceanic data systems capable of serving the

growing user needs and of handling the growing

data volume. The first step is assigning agency or

program responsibility for comprehensive management geared to user needs. The second step is

choosing a Federal, regional, or private data

management system and upgrading it with

modern technology for use as an oceanic data

system.

Congress could initiate the first step by requiring that data management for all end-users be included in plans and budgets for major new programs, The second step could also be at the

direction of Congress. For example, if the data

management system choice were a major Federal

system, Congress could provide NOAA with

funds and added responsibility to establish a central Federal data network for all users of future

oceanographic data. Otherwise, Congress could

either establish regional oceanographic data networks for management and distribution of

oceanic data outside of the Federal agencies or

provide incentives for commercial data networks

to be established for end-users.

Ships

Issue

The capabilities of the Federal fleet of research

and survey ships will continue to degrade unless

additional new funds are added or new, more efficient systems are devised to provide and operate

these ships at less cost. Several years of debate

have failed to resolve whether more centralized

management systems with greater Federal control would produce savings so that capabilities

could be maintained or enhanced, especially

when funding does not match escalating costs.

Discussion

The future of oceanographic ships appears to

be constrained by limited Federal funding for

ship operation, rehabilitation, and replacement.

Thus, it is important to consider whether a

system can be devised to maintain fleet capabilities with less funding or whether increased funding must be provided to maintain adequate

numbers of capable ships. It will always be necessary to provide some new funds to replace and

refit ships and to upgrade equipment and instrumentation.

Management of federally supported ships entails not only operating and maintaining the existing fleet, but also planning the mix of the

future fleet. At present, the Federal fleet includes

ships designed for general-purpose (flexible) applications and for special-purpose tasks. The fleet

is operated by organizations that have a variety of

missions ranging from basic research to routine

surveys.

In the present Federal fleet, a distinction can

be made between ships that are operated directly

by Federal agencies mostly for routine surveys or

applied programs and those operated by academic institutions mostly for basic research. The

agency fleets tend to have more centralized management within each agency. The academic

fleet, on the other hand, has been subject to very

little Federal control over operations; but som e

agencies, like NSF, have recently tried to plan
22 . Technology and Oceanography

Photo credit Scripps lnstitution ot Oceanography

R/V Alpha Helix, owned by NSF and built in 1966, has

recently been transferred from Scripps Institution of

Oceanography to the University of Alaska. The ship is 133-ft

long and can accommodate 12 scientists

and effect cost -saving changes in the fleet

makeup.

There are several studies underway that will

provide planning information on the future management needs for oceanographic ships. These

include studies of the academic fleet by the National Academy of Sciences/National Research

Council, two oceanographic laboratory groups,

Navy, and NSF; studies of NOAA’s fleet by

NOAA; and studies of Navy’s fleet by Navy. A

study by the General Accounting Office (GAO) in

1978 identified a decline in capabilities and efficiencies in the Federal fleet and recommended

that a single manager be designated or that a

Government-wide fleet-allocation council be established. Accordingly, in mid- 1980, the Federal

Oceanographic Fleet Coordination Council (a

subgroup of the interagency Committee on the

Atmosphere and Oceans) was established in response to GAO’s recommendation and to that of

several agencies.

Several groups are also pursuing certain

aspects of regional operations for the academic

fleet. NSF and Navy have stated that moves

toward regional academic fleet operations should

and will be encouraged. Some proposals for regional operating centers for new coastal research

ships have been made; and cooperative operations of large, special-purpose ships, such as a

geological/geophysical vessel, have been discussed.

Those who argue for more centralized management or Federal control over the oceanographic fleet claim that the result would save

money because some functions could be merged

and some operations would be more efficient.

Thus, central fleet management could facilitate

more accurate planning for future fleet makeup,

in particular for replacement or refurbishment of

ships. A specific long-range plan for ships to be

retired and new ships to be built could be laid out

and consistently followed if only one office were

in charge.

However, oceanographers consider central

management and control detrimental to the flexibility and individual project efficiency that is so

important to basic research, and to some applied

research as well. They view the present system of

decentralized management and planning, particularly in the academic fleet, as more satisfactory for individual research needs as well as for

agency and program missions. Some argue that

flexibility must be maintained if the opportunities for new discovery associated with basic

research are to be pursued. The cost-effective

planning needed in central operations may not

be possible in basic research; and some claim that

the small, decentralized ship operators can,

therefore, provide services at less cost.

These concerns about centralization are reflected in several areas. USGS and EPA, who now

operate just a few ships, claim that they could not

relinquish control of their vessels to another

agency because of their unique program needs

and unique vessel capabilities. In the academic

community, serious conflicts exist over whether

NSF or other agencies supporting basic science

should have the authority to decide on the makeup or operations of the fleet as a whole. In addition, many scientists and Government agencies

have recognized a growing need for polar research ship capabilities, but the mission agencies

have not been able to consolidate their needs and

bring together the resources and justification for

a polar ship.

Many of the needed efforts to resolve this issue

are already underway in the Federal agencies and

institutions. If Congress wished to oversee and

direct these efforts more carefully, it could call

for the submission of ongoing studies of the fleets
Ch. l—Summary and Findings ● 2 3

when the studies are completed, and it could request a consolidation of study recommendations

from all agencies. This consolidation could be

done by an existing interagency committee or by

a White House office. As part of these efforts,

Congress could request a projection of the costs of

maintaining the U.S. oceanographic fleet capabilities under the present and any proposed system. The choice could then be to either provide

sufficient funds or eliminate certain capabilities.

Finally, to assist coordination among agencies,

Congress could establish and fund an interagency

ship planning council with the authority to

specify management and planning practices, a

move which could reduce costs.

Satellite Oceanography

Issue

Major satellite systems for oceanography are

being planned that could become the dominant

thrust in ocean technology in the next two decades. NOSS is one part of this thrust; however,

several additional systems will be needed to meet

the range of operational and research goals now

established. Many research programs and oceanuser groups, including scientists and industry,

could benefit from oceanic satellite data, but

only a few Government agencies acting together

can now afford the very high costs of this technology.

Discussion

Satellite remote sensing could become the fastest growing segment of oceanography if certain

agency plans are followed. NOSS, a proposed

operational demonstration satellite system designed to meet the needs of Navy and NOAA for

the collection of oceanographic data, may be the

first of a new generation of oceanographic

satellites. Twenty-five percent of the NOSS

payload has been reserved for research purposes.

Moreover, NOSS data have the potential to benefit a wide range of public and private applications by providing a long-term, synoptic, allweather view of the ocean surface. If additional

satellite programs follow NOSS, as many have

advocated, the cost of oceanic satellite hardware

and data systems for both research and operational users could be about another $1 billion in

addition to the NOSS program.

The activities within the Department of Defense and NOAA that have considerable need for

satellite oceanography are Navy and NOAA’s

National Weather Service (NWS). In Navy, the

Fleet Numerical Oceanography Center provides

near real - time synoptic ocean data for fleet

operations because naval ships and weapons cannot operate effectively without current environmental information. In NOAA, NWS is expected to provide several services that rely on

synoptic ocean data and routine weather forecasts. These data could be used for automated

ship and aircraft routing, performance estimates

for radar and sonar, and search and rescue operations. To accomplish these operational missions, meteorological and oceanographic forecast

services over the oceans should be continually

maintained. The information required range

from complete satellite coverage data to subsurface measurements data from buoys, ships,

and other stations.

A variety of important research programs

could also benefit from satellite observations

because some large-scale features of the ocean

surface may be described adequately only by such

remote sensing. Satellite data are useful for addressing problems relating to descriptions of the

ocean’s influence in world climate, observations

of large circulation patterns, investigations of

marine pollution, large-scale studies of oceanic

productivity, and many other phenomena which

occur near the sea surface. Those research projects that require observations beneath the sea surface will need additional tools and techniques

that work in conjunction with satellites.

The extent to which satellites themselves will

add new knowledge and thus justify very large

costs is difficult to evaluate until more experience

is obtained. A large investment in satellite

oceanography in the future will probably draw

funds and people from other programs of ocean

observation or may make other methods, such as

the use of surface and subsurface vehicles, more

dependent upon work with satellites. In fact,

many researchers believe that future uses of

satellites will increase the need for ships to make

surface-calibration measurements and other sub-
24 ● Technology and Oceanography

surface measurements not possible from spacecraft. In future debates over costs and benefits of

satellite oceanography programs, researchers

must consider both the intrinsic value of the programs as well as their possible effects on other

ocean research technology.

Satellite systems, including ground support

and data handling, require long development

periods (5 to 10 years) before becoming operational. Consistent Federal support is necessary if

the systems are to be useful to broad segments of

public and private groups. Because of the large

Federal support needed, long-range planning is

also necessary. NASA has started a long-range

planning process for satellite oceanography, and

many other Federal agencies and private groups

will probably participate in the process as it

develops. Cooperative long-range planning is

supported by many now working with the NOSS

program, but is not supported by some researchers and agencies who wish to maintain the flexibility and uniqueness of their own programs.

Some researchers also feel that new sensor development will be the key to future useful oceanographic measurements from satellites because

NOSS-proposed sensors have limited capabilities.

While NASA has developed a broadly supported approach to the NOSS program to meet

both the operational needs of Navy and NOAA,

and the research needs of many users as well,

agencies such as USGS remain convinced that a

mission like that of a Seasat-B, which would be

more research-oriented and limited in scope,

would be preferable. Researchers also claim that

major, long-range Federal support of satellite

oceanography must await both the results of further experimentation with many techniques as

well as the success of the NOSS prototype mission.

Because of the substantial funds required for a

major satellite oceanography program, Congress

will have a continuing interest over many years in

plans, budgets, justifications, and possible alternatives. As with all major Federal efforts, the

NOSS program will be subject to close congressional oversight. For such oversight it may be

desirable to select each major program decisionpoint and evaluate specific cost and benefit

justifications with the understanding that NOSS

is just one step (a demonstration prototype) in a

larger, satellite oceanography thrust. To assist

this process Congress could call for a long-range

plan for satellite oceanography, specifying research and operational program needs in each

Federal agency and some optional methods of

providing them, including nonsatellite means.

Contents

Page

Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Current Program Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Technology Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Ocean Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Weather and Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Energy and Mineral Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Environmental Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Fisheries and Living Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Public Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Management and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Agency Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Budgets and Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Estimated Expenditures for Federal Ocean Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Future Expenditures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

TABLES

Table No. Page

1. Number of Programs by Category of Activity of Principal Emphasis. . . . . . . . . . . 28

2. Federal Programs Involved in Developing Ocean Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3. Estimated Expenditures of Federal Marine Programs: by Agency–

by Category–Fiscal Year 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4. Relative Estimated Expenditures for Federal Ocean Programs: by Agency–

by Category-Fiscal Year 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5. Estimated Expenditures in Selected Agencies, Fiscal Years 1980-84 . . . . . . . . . . . 36

6. Approximate Personnel Allocations to Program Categories for Three

Agencies–NOAA, Navy, DOI–FiscalYear 1980... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

FIGURES

Figure No. Page

1. Estimated Expenditures of Federal Marine Programs, Fiscal Year 1980 . . . . . . . . 34

2. Estimated Expenditures of Federal Marine Programs, Fiscal Year 1980,

by Agency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Chapter 2

Agencies, Programs, and Budgets

Current national programs in oceanography

reflect an increasing emphasis on activities that

will produce more efficient use of ocean resources, greater coordination between agencies

engaged in ocean research, and improved ocean

research methods. Legislation in recent years has

focused specifically on climate research, ocean

pollution, Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) development, and fisheries management and conservation. In these areas and others, primarily eight

Federal agencies are currently engaged in 90 programs. The major agencies involved include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

U.S. Coast Guard (Department of Transportation),

Department of Energy (DOE),

Department of the Interior (DOI),

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),

National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (Department of Commerce),

National Science Foundation (NSF), and

U.S. Navy (Department of Defense).

Two agencies that are not included are the

Maritime Administration and U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers. OTA judged that the missions of

these agencies were not sufficiently related to

oceanographic research or monitoring as addressed in this assessment.

Using the individual agency descriptions of

their present programs, budgets, and plans for

oceanographic research and data collection,

OTA has broadly classified agency programs

under the following nine categories in order to

simplify their review:

● Technology Development programs created

specifically to provide technological support

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

to Federal programs in oceanography, including the design, construction, testing,

and deployment of hardware and other

equipment.

Ocean science programs to advance scientific knowledge.

Weather and climate programs dealing

with the collection and analysis of oceanic

and atmospheric data.

Energy and mineral resources programs to

explore and develop nonliving natural resources from the ocean.

Environmental quality programs to improve or enhance the quality of the oceans,

Great Lakes, and coastal regions.

Fisheries resources programs to develop

food resources from the oceans and the

Great Lakes.

Public service programs organized especially to communicate with the public and to

assist the public in the solution of oceanrelated problems, including marine safety.

Management and enforcement programs

to manage or assist in managing marine resources, or to enforce laws and regulations

pertaining to the coastal and ocean environments.

Agency support programs to support either

in-house efforts and missions or those of

other Federal agencies.

Although programs have been assigned to

categories according to their apparent primary

emphases (table 1), such categorization does not

adequately represent a total program, since

many programs perform tasks outside their primary missions. The following provides a brief

summary of agencies and current program areas.

27
28 . Technology and Oceanography

Table 1.—Number of Programs by Category of Activity of Principal Emphasis

Technology Ocea n Weather/ Energy/ Environmental ‘ -

Fishery Public Management Agency -

Agency development sciences climate mineral quality resource service enforcement support Total

Coast Guard ‘. . 1 0 0 0 “2 o 2 2 0 7

DOE . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 5

DOI. . . . . . . . . . 0 1 0 2 3 2 6 3 3 20

EPA . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 3 11

NASA. . . . . . . . 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

NOAA. . . . . . . . 3 3 4 0 2 2 8 3 5 30

NSF . . . . . . . . . 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

Navy. . . . . . . . . 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4

Totals. . . . . . 12 12 4 4 17 4 16 8 13 90

NOTE: OTA has assigned each agency program to the category of its principal emphasis, based on agency-furnished descriptions of the program

SOURCE. Off Ice of Technology Assessment

AGENCIES

The major ocean responsibilities of the eight

Federal agencies surveyed for this report are

listed briefly below.

U.S. Coast Guard: Marine safety programs to

minimize loss of life and property; vessel,

ports, waterways, and related facilities safety;

management and enforcement activities in

U.S. waters and the high seas where authorized; navigational research; ocean research

and engineering; maintenance and improvement of the quality of the marine environment; the pollution fund; ice- and currentcondition tracking and research.

Department of Energy: Research in deep-sea

disposal of nuclear wastes; determination of

environmental health and safety effects of

energy technology and programs; carbon dioxide (C02

) research and climate research; pollution research in the marine environment;

ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) research and development; wind, waves, and

current research; deep-drilling research for oil

and gas exploration.

Department of the Interior: OCS resource evaluation and management; offshore geologic

surveys; marine and coastal zone resource

evaluation; oilspill trajectory and analysis;

responsibility for fish and wildlife habitats and

resources, including research and management; barrier island research; advancement of

mineral technology and research.

Environmental Protection

mental quality research of

Agency: Environthe oceans and the

Great lakes; research on pollution problems of

the coastal zone; petroleum and hazardous

materials research in the marine environment;

ocean-dumping research; water quality evaluation.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Development, construction, and operation of aeronautical space vehicles; development of capability to observe the oceans from

space for operational and research purposes.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Provision of weather forecasts for the

United States; weather modification activities;

management and research services related to

the protection and use of living marine resources, including marine mammals; preparation and issuance of nautical and aeronautical

charts; geodetic surveys; prediction of tides,

currents, and state of the oceans; marine and

atmospheric research; coastal zone management; management of all civilian operational

remote-sensing activities from space; acquisition and dissemination of environmental data;

Sea Grant; research and development of databuoy technology; ocean engineering.

National Science Foundation: Support of basic

research in the areas of Earth, ocean, and atmospheric sciences; partial support of the academic research fleet; research in the Antarctic.
Ch. 2—Agencies, Programs, and Budgets 29

U.S. Navy: Collection and dissemination of knowledge of the physical, geological, chemocean environmental data and prediction serv- ical, and biological nature of the oceans; ocean

ices; research and development to advance engineering; diving medical research.

CURRENT

Technology Development

Historically, oceanography has relied on

PROGRAM AREAS

ships

to explore the sea. In recent years, agencies have

added aircraft, orbiting satellites, deep seabed

stations, buoy networks, submersibles, and other

equipment and instrumentation to their oceanographic capabilities. This technology has been

essential for advancing ocean research, and its

development has been supported by many agencies through individual programs.

Much of this technology development, particularly of sensors and recorders, has been done by

individuals or groups of scientists from small Federal grants. As shown in table 2, technology development efforts do not seem to be emphasized

in any one agency. Seven of the eight agencies

have three or more technology areas where their

programs have a focus.

A few Federal programs are working on new

kinds of ship designs, such as DOE’s ocean thermal test vessel; new underwater vehicles, such as

Navy’s deep submergence vehicle Sea Cliff; or

new deep-sea drilling ships, such as that in NSF’s

Ocean Margin Drilling Program (OMDP). Four

of the agencies in table 2 have technological efforts directed toward satellites.

Since high costs and long leadtime in the development of technology require planning, coordination, and sizable funding, technology development is perhaps the one area in which the greatest agency cooperation is needed. Some cooperation is evident; e.g., all activities given in table 2

which involve satellites are jointly sponsored, and

many of the programs for developing sensors for

installation on satellites are cooperative efforts.

In another example, Coast Guard and NOAA

have a formal agreement whereby the Coast

Guard deploys and maintains NOAA’s data-collecting buoys.

Ocean Science

Increased understanding of ocean processes

and the effect of the ocean on the global environment is the basis of the Nation’s ocean science

program. While scientific purpose is evident to

some degree in all Federal ocean research programs, whether basic or applied, the primary

mission of several efforts — particularly in NSF,

NOAA, and Navy– is basic research, which is defined here as ocean science.

In fiscal year 1980, NSF spent $106 million on

ocean-related projects out of a total science

Table 2.—Federal Programs Involved in Developing Ocean Technology

Types of technology

Underwater Submers- Remote

Agency Ships laboratories ibles Buoys Satellites sensors Instruments

Coast Guard — — — x x x

DOE . . . . . .

—

x — — x — — x

DOI . . . . . . . — — — — — — x

EPA. . . . . . . — — — — — —

NASA . . . . . – — — — x x 2

NOAA . . . . . — x — x x x x

NSF . . . . . . x — x — — x x

Navy . . . . . . — — x — x x x

SOURCE. Office of Technology Assessment
30 . Technology and Oceanography

budget of almost $1 billion. Of this amount, $17

million supported the Deep-Sea Drilling Project

(DSDP) and OMDP. An important NSF function

is to provide partial support for the Nation’s

academic fleet, which accounts for about onequarter of the budget. NSF-supported work is

generally carried out through grants and contracts to individual scientists in universities, institutes, and industries.

NSF programs are focused in six fields:

● Earth sciences,

. atmospheric sciences,

● polar programs,

. environmental biology,

● applied research, and

● ocean sciences.

NOAA’s ocean science efforts grow out of congressional assignments or from demands arising

from NOAA operational components for increased information to meet mission objectives. The

few NOAA programs that have basic science objectives are found at NOAA’s Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory and at

the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory.

Most of the other NOAA programs have some

ocean science components. For example, the

Hurricane Modification Program, conducted by

NOAA’s Environmental Research Laboratories,

includes both atmospheric and ocean observations. The collected data provide a greater

understanding of the ocean and atmosphere and

have an immediate and direct application within

the National Weather Service. Unlike NSF,

whose cadre of scientific expertise extends to the

academic community, NOAA’s efforts are accomplished primarily through NOAA personnel.

More than 80 percent of Navy’s ocean science

effort is associated with basic research in support

of future Navy missions. The programs are managed or funded by the Office of Naval Research,

and research is conducted by Navy personnel and

outside contractors. Primary program emphasis

is on underwater acoustics. Basic biomedical

research associated with underwater diving and

divers is also a part of Navy’s program.

Weather and Climate

The ocean contributes significantly to the

world’s weather and climate because it is a major

energy source for the atmosphere. Better understanding of heat storage in the ocean and heat

transfer between the ocean and the atmosphere

will improve the ability to forecast weather and

climate.

The equatorial and polar regions of the globe

are particularly important in understanding

ocean/atmosphere exchange and interaction

processes. Several major new studies in the

equatorial Pacific and Atlantic are now underway by NOAA and NSF. Sea-ice studies are conducted by NOAA, NSF, Navy, and Coast Guard;

and NASA has some plans for a program to provide satellite sensors and ground-truth stations to

study the relationship of polar ice to climate.

With the research studies, it is important to

maintain a long-term and consistent ocean climate-monitoring program. Some data-collecting

programs are carried out, primarily through

NOAA, but they do not result in a sustained

ocean climate-monitoring program. NOAA has

been designated as the lead agency for coordinating such a national climate-related program

under the National Climate Program Act. At the

same time, an international effort to monitor

ocean climate is planned by the World Climate

Research Program with U.S. participation.

Energy and Mineral Resources

Substantial petroleum resources are found

under the ocean’s continental shelf. Other potential energy sources may include the harnessing of

energy from ocean waves, currents, winds, and

thermal energy. The Federal effort in this area is

focused in two agencies. The U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS) of DOI is concerned with the evaluation of the potential oil and gas resources to be

found in federally owned submerged lands. DOE

is concerned with the development of new technologies to exploit both oil and gas resources and

other ocean energy potentials.
Ch. 2—Agencies, Programs, and Budgets ● 31

Of the almost $87 million spent in fiscal year

1980 by these two agencies, $40 million was

directed toward a major program to develop and

commercialize OTEC by DOE. This program

would take advantage of the vast amounts of

thermal energy in the ocean and is presently

focused on an upcoming decision to build and

test a pilot plant of 10 to 40 megawatts of electrical output. Other research at DOE includes

developing techniques to extract energy from

ocean waves and currents and developing deepdrilling technology for future offshore oil and gas

production. Oil and gas are now being produced

in many areas offshore of U.S. coasts. Selection of

the offshore tracts which will be offered for lease

to industry by the Government is the responsibility of DOI. USGS surveys and determines the market value of submerged lands and recommends to

the Department those tracts which should be offered for lease.

Recent legislation on OTEC and Deep Seabed

Mining has given new responsibilities to NOAA

in the mineral and energy resources field. These

acts task NOAA to perform a licensing function

for OTEC and offshore mining.

Environmental Quality

The 17 Federal programs which attempt to improve the environmental quality of the oceans,

the Great Lakes, and the coastal regions account

for approximately $207 million in Federal funds.

Although the majority of these programs are

within EPA, the bulk of Federal funds are in

other agencies, such as NOAA, DOI, DOE, and

Coast Guard. The Corps of Engineers also supports marine environmental programs.

Pollution problems of the immediate coastal

zone, and particularly the toxicological effects of

various pollutants on estuarine species, is the

focus of much of EPA’s work. EPA also coordinates all Federal cleanup activities when there

is a discharge of a hazardous substance in inland

waters. Research programs investigating the

source, fate, and effects of pollutants in the Great

Lakes, in an effort to protect and enhance the

water quality of the region and to prevent deterioration of the water resources, are conducted by

NOAA and EPA. Surveillance and monitoring

activities are carried out by both agencies.

The fate and effects of petroleum and other

hazardous materials on the marine ecosystem is

investigated by DOE, NOAA, and EPA. DOE

has an ongoing program to investigate the feasibility of deep seabed disposal of radioactive

waste. Baseline surveys and a permitting program for the designation of ocean dump sites are

housed within EPA, although permitting and enforcement is carried out by the Corps of Engineers and Coast Guard.

Fisheries and Living Resources

In recent years, fishermen, sportsmen, environmentalists, and marine enthusiasts have used

their collective influence to activate a substantial

interest in fisheries resources at the Federal level,

The result has been a steady flow of Federal programs concentrating on living resources of the

sea.

Part of the present interest in fisheries research

stems from the demand for better information

needed to manage the fishery resources which

were extended by the Fishery Conservation and

Management Act of 1976 (FCMA) to include a

200-mile-wide zone bordering the coastlines.

Federal activities in commercial and recreational

fisheries, fish cultivation, marine mammal research and protection, and other living resources

of the sea are focused in the National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS) of NOAA and in the

Fish and Wildlife Service of DO I.

NMFS programs are directed toward the conservation and management of all fisheries in offshore Federal waters between the State jurisdiction limit of 3 miles offshore to the Federal

jurisdiction limit of 200 miles offshore. The programs include those to improve habitats as well as

those to establish appropriate levels of harvesting

by both U.S. and foreign fishermen.
32 ● Technology and Oceanography

DOI programs involve management of ocean

fish that spawn in freshwater. A number of other

Federal agencies, whose major emphasis is elsewhere, conduct programs that are closely related

to fisheries, especially in managing resources and

enforcing regulations governing fish catch and in

protecting marine mammals and other endangered species.

Public Service

Programs with public service as a major focus

serve as channels for information from the

Federal Government to the general public. In

many instances, these programs work closely with

research and technology development programs.

The most visible public service program is

NOAA’s Public Weather Service, which issues

warnings and forecasts about the weather.

Another NOAA program of public interest includes the Environmental Data and Information

Service, which is the national data bank for

oceanic information and includes the National

Oceanic Data Center, the National Climatic

Center, the National Geophysical and SolarTerrestrial Data Center, the Environmental

Science Information Center, and the Center for

Environmental Assessment Services. These centers provide computer-stored data and publications to Federal agencies, scientists, and other

users. NOAA’s National Ocean Survey provides

charts, maps, tide and current data, and other

types of marine information for public use. DOI’s

USGS produces some maps of coastal lands and

islands. NOAA and DOI cooperatively interchange data for their coastal area publications.

The Coast Guard’s public service components

include the search-and-rescue service for mariners and a program to construct and maintain

navigational aids to ensure safe passage of marine

traffic in coastal and inland waterways and in

harbors.

Other public service programs are public

granting services, including the National Sea

Grant College Program, the Marine Extension

Services, Federal Aid for Fish and Wildlife

Restoration, and the Fisheries Financial Support

Services. Sea Grant is a matching-grant program

for conducting research, education, and public

service related to marine resources development;

socioeconomic and legal aspects of marine

resources; marine technology research and development; and environmental research. Applied

research projects are generally directed toward

the solution of specific problems identified by the

States and regions in which the program

operates. The most visible public service aspect of

Sea Grant is the marine advisory services effort.

Its objectives are to assist industry and Government in marine resource development and protection and-to inform the public of problems, opportunities, and progress in marine affairs.

In a number of agencies, the public service

ocean programs are large, and 16 programs in

three agencies or departments of the Government

directed more than $900 million toward public

service in fiscal year 1980.

Management and Enforcement

Federal involvement in the management of

marine resources and in enforcement of laws and

regulations related to marine activities is extensive. Resource management includes managing

public coastal and offshore lands in oil and gas

production, allocating fishery stocks and assigning optimum yield, and overseeing the development of the coastal zone. NOAA’s Coastal Zone

Management Program (CZMP) is carried out

through cost-sharing grants with States, The

States or other organizations plan resource use

and development, while the Federal Government

evaluates the plans. The assignment of planning

responsibility to regional managers occurs in

both CZMP and the Regional Fisheries Councils

called for by FCMA.

In USGS, the Outer Continental Shelf Lease

Management Program regulates OCS oil and gas

production and reservoir shut-in operations, sets

up natural gas-pricing categories, verifies drilling

platform safety, and conducts some research and

development in support of OCS activities.

The Coast Guard regulates recreational boating and licenses offshore terminals, merchant

vessels, marine personnel, and floating drilling

platforms.
Ch. 2—Agencies, Programs, and Budgets ● 33

Enforcement authority over foreign fishing in

the 200-mile U.S. coastal fisheries zone rests with

the Coast Guard, which also enforces international treaties. NMFS (NOAA) has a related responsibility to enforce any Federal ocean fishing

regulation of U.S. fishermen operating in the

200-mile zone. The Fish and Wildlife Service

manages coastal wildlife refuges

laws to protect certain fish and

ticularly those that are endangered

Agency Support

a n d

wild

enforces

life, parSeveral Federal marine programs provide supporting operations for the agency in which they

are located or for other agencies. Typically, these

programs offer centralized services which other

agency components use, such as equipment,

ships, aircraft, satellites, and facilities.

Stations for oceanographic observations are

maintained by NOAA, NASA, NSF, DOE, EPA,

and Navy. NSF, NOAA, and Navy have support

programs for ships and ship bases while NOAA

and NSF maintain centralized facilities for research aircraft. Satellites and services are provided by NASA and through NOAA’s environmental satellite services.

A network for collecting and distributing

weather data, primarily for the Public Weather

Service, is operated within NOAA. Surveys to

support charting and mapping services are provided by support programs in NOAA, Navy, and

USGS.

AI

vide

and

wild

and

other form of support are studies that proinformation needed by agencies. The Fish

Wildlife Service, e.g., conducts a fish and

ife research program that provides scientific

technical planning support for the operations of agencies and other organizations. The

Environmental Studies Program of the Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) supports the Federal

OCS oil and gas leasing program by examining

possible environmental effects of offshore production. NOAA manages BLM’s program off

Alaska and provides ship support for the project.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve Program of

DOE provides the informa

EPA requirements for the

store crude oil.

These and other support

ion needed to satisfy

use of salt domes to

activities accounted

for $284 million in fiscal year 1980 and included

13 programs in all agencies.

BUDGETS AND PERSONNEL

Estimated Expenditures for

Federal Ocean Programs

The Federal ocean programs of eight agencies

and departments had expenditures of $2.5 billion

in fiscal year 1980. The charts and graphs that

follow show the distribution of these funds. Because some programs operated from income accounts, such as the Pollution Fund of the Coast

Guard and the Fisherman’s Contingency Fund,

and others operated from prior-year carryover

funds, such as NOAA’s Coastal Energy Impact

Fund ($132.6 million), the totals presented do

not reflect just appropriated funds.

Figure 1 delineates the estimated amount of

money spent in each ocean-related program category in fiscal year 1980. As shown, programs in

the public service category accounted for the

largest expenditures and represented an outlay of

$919 million. Management and enforcement

programs accounted for $647 million. Weather

and climate programs received the least amount

of support. There were, however, basic science

programs of NSF which were directed toward

weather and climate but which are categorized

under ocean science for this report.

A review of the estimated expenditures of each

agency, presented in figure 2, reveals that Coast

Guard reported the greatest expenditure, that of

$1.358 billion, in fiscal year 1980. This was more

than the combined expenditures of all the other

agencies.

When expenditures are charted into program

categories for each agency (table 3), it can be
34 . Technology and Oceanography

Figure l.— Estimated Expenditures of Federal Marine Programs, Fiscal Year 1980

(in millions of dollars)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550600650 700 750800 850900 9501000

SOURCE. Offlceof Technology Assessment

Figure2.— Estimated Expenditures of Federal Marine Programs, Fiscal Year 1980,by Agency

(in millions of dollars)

o 100 200 300 400 500 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.
Ch. 2—Agencies, Programs, and Budgets ● 35

Table 3.—Estimated Expenditures of Federal Marine Programs: by Agency—by Category-Fiscal Year 1980

(in millions of dollars)

Agency

Category

Agency support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Energy and mineral resources . . . . . . . . .

Environmental quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fishery resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Management and enforcement . . . . . . . .

Ocean science. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technology development. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Weather and climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Coast

—Guard DOE DOI EPA NASA NOAA NSF Navy Total

— $ 2 $ 70 $ 4 – $ 68 – $139 $283

44 — — — — — 87

$136 1 8 4 28 – 20 – – 206

— — 12 – — 45 — — 57

477 — 41 — — 130 648

— — — — — 4 $106 8 8 198

686 – 19 — 214 — — 919

59 – – – $ 2 4 13 — 10 106

— — — — — 20 – – 20

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,358 $ 63 $190 $ 32 $ 24 $514 $106 $237 $2,524

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

seen that over one-half of Coast Guard’s expen - only 4.1 percent of the total even though four

ditures ($686 million) were in public service pro- agencies had technology development efforts.

grams. NOAA, second in overall expenditures,

also spent the greatest portion of its funds in

public service efforts. In addition, NOAA had

the widest spread of activities, with expenditures

in all program categories.

It is interesting to note in table 4 that the three

agencies with the greatest expenditures — Coast

Guard, NOAA, and Navy-account for over 80

percent of the total Federal marine program

funds. The three largest categories – public service, management and enforcement, and agency

support — accounted for over 70 percent of the

total. Technology development accounted for

Based on the funding, the principal program

area emphasis for each agency appears to be as

follows:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Coast Guard –public service and management /enforcement,

DOE –energy and environment,

DOI –energy/mineral, management and

support,

EPA –environmental quality,

NASA – technology,

NOAA – public service and management,

NSF–ocean sciences, and

Navy-ocean science and support.

Table 4.—Relative Estimated Expenditures for Federal Ocean Programs: by Agency—by Category-Fiscal

Year 1980 (percentage of grand total of $2.5 billion)

Technology Ocea n Weather/ Energy/ Environmental Fishery Public Management Agenc y

Agency development sciences climat e mineral quality resource service enforcement support Total

-——.—.———

Coast Guard”. . 2.3 0 0 “- o ‘-

5.4 0 27.1 ‘-

‘18.9 o

-

53.7

DOE . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 1.7 0.7 0 0 0 0.1 2.5

DOI . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 1.7 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.6 2.8 7.6

EPA . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 1.1 0 0 0 0.1 1.2

NASA . . . . . . . . 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0

NOAA. . . . . . . . 0.5 0.1 0.8 0 0.8 1.9 8.5 5.1 2.7 20.4

NSF . . . . . . . . . 0 4.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.2

Navy. . . . . . . . . 0.4 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.5 9.4

Totals. . . . . . 4.2 7.8 0.8 3.4 8.2 2.4 36.4 25.6 11.2 100

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment
36 ● Technology and Oceanography

Future Expenditures

Projecting expenditures is part of the planning

cycle of program development. For this report,

(during 1980) NOAA, NASA, NSF, and Navy

provided OTA with information on their projected funding levels for the categories listed in

table 3. In fiscal year 1980 these four agencies accounted for expenditures of $881.6 million. All

of the agencies except NOAA predicted increased

expenditures through fiscal year 1984 (table 5).

NOAA projected a sharp drop followed by a

leveling off of expenditures after fiscal year 1982.

The greatest percentage of increase appeared

in NASA’s proposed spending levels; from fiscal

year 1980 to fiscal year 1981, NASA planned an

increase of almost 50 percent. A portion of this

increase was earmarked for the National Oceanic

Satellite System (NOSS), with the rest proposed

for two other ocean satellite programs beginning

after fiscal year 1982. Not reflected in table 5 is

NASA’s Ocean Research Mission which was

planned in conjunction with the launching of

NOSS. Over the 1980 to 1984 timespan, NASA’s

proposed funding level increases more than sixfold.

NSF planned increases of 13 percent in fiscal

year 1981 and 17 percent in fiscal year 1982, followed by a decrease of 8 percent in fiscal year

1983 and an increase of 10 percent in fiscal year

1984.

Increases in Navy expenditures were expected

to be approximately 14 percent in fiscal year

1981 and 12 percent in fiscal year 1982, leveling

off at about 9 percent for the following 2 years.

NOAA had not planned any increases of ocean

programs during the next few years. Most programs show slight increases or decreases or appear as level-funded for the term. The only increase in NOAA’s projections was for the Global

Atmospheric Research Program, expected to

more than double in funding from fiscal year

1980 to fiscal year 1984. NOAA states that its

projections have an “implicit downward bias” because no inflationary factors were included and

no program increases were formally approved.

Two agencies, Navy and Coast Guard, provided information on expected expenditures for

technology development in some programs.

The Navy’s capital investment in oceanographic operations, amounting to $9.6 million in

fiscal year 1980, is used mainly for modification

and replacement of shipboard survey equipment.

In fiscal year 1985, Navy expects to spend $25.7

million for capital expenses in oceanographic

operations.

Although Coast Guard does not normally develop new technology, a considerable amount of

its planned expenditures is dedicated to “acquisitions, construction, and improvements, ” and in

every program area such capital investment expenditures are found. The funds are use d

variously: to construct small boats; to purchase

surveillance aircraft; to replace, renovate, or

construct shore facilities, such as coastal and air

stations; and to upgrade equipment. In all, Coast

Guard estimated that approximately $280.8 million was used for these purposes.

Table 5.—Estimated Expenditures in Selected Agencies, Fiscal Years 1980-84 (in millions of dollars)

Agency 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Total

NASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $23.7 $ 35.4’ $ 68.8b $106.0’ $ 147.2 $ 381.1

NOAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513.9d 444.4e 382.0 381.9 381.8 2,104.0

NSFf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106.4 120.0 140.49 129.1 142.6 638.5

Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237.6 270.6 303.9 331.0 361.0 1,504.1

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $881.6 $870.4 $895.1 $948.0 $1,032.6 $4,627.7

aFundlng for NOSS begins. elncludes $624 milllon in prior-year carryover funds.

bFUrldlrlg for NASA’S Ice Experiment (ICEX) begins. flnclude5 support for deep-sea drllllng and ocean margin drlllmg Pro9rams

cFUndlrlg for pJAsA’s Topographical Experiment (TOPEX) begins. glncludes construction cost for Ice-strengthened ship.

dlncludes $1344 mltllon In prior-year carryover funds

SOURCE. Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1960.
Ch. 2—Agencies, Programs, and Budgets 37

In 1981 the new administration proposed substantial reductions in most nonmilitary programs

for fiscal years 1981 and 1982. These proposals

have not been analyzed for this report. However,

they will undoubtedly have the most significant

effect on major new and costly programs such as

those noted in table 5.

Personnel

Seven agencies –Coast Guard, Navy, NOAA,

DOI, NSF, DOE, and NASA –responded to

OTA’s request for staff allocations for fiscal year

1980. In these agencies, the number of personnel

involved in Federal ocean-related programs is

estimated to be about 56,000. Because each

agency operates in a different manner, a comparison or evaluation of the staff level and the

level of expenditures for staff is not possible.

However, these estimates do provide a sense of

personnel effort involved in ocean research in

general and in each agency in particular.

It is of interest to note there are three different

composition groups based on staffing levels

within these agencies. The Coast Guard is in a

group by itself with the largest number of

personnel–43,757 (38,384 military and 5,373

civilian) and a very large portion of its budget

allocated to direct agency-operated and staffed

programs. This is because Coast Guard’s work

takes place mainly in the field; in ports, harbors,

and at sea; and aboard its own ships or in its own

facilities. The figures provided by Coast Guard

represent the estimated number of people associated with all Coast Guard operating programs.

In addition, Coast Guard is a multimission service; its personnel are generally not dedicated to

one particular program, but may in fact support

several programs.

A second group that includes NOAA, Navy,

and DO I has a total of 11,000 staff working on its

ocean-related programs — NOAA (4,704), Navy

(3,972), DOI (2,324). These three have a mixture

of work conducted by agency people at agency

facilities and work conducted by contractors.

The three are similar in total staff level and

amount of money expended per staff person, and

each has some major field operations and laboratory facilities. Table 6 shows the approximate

allocations of these personnel to program categories.

The third group has very small staffs and includes NASA, NSF, and DOE. Each agency has

25 people or less working on ocean programs –

NASA (9), NSF (25), DOE (24). Unlike the other

agencies surveyed, these agencies maintain small

core staffs and use contractors or grantees to perform all work. NSF and DOE rely on their staffs

to evaluate proposals and to monitor contracts.

NASA’s ocean-related staff remains small, but if

NOSS is funded, its Oceanic Processes Branch is

expected to increase. This branch contracts out

the majority of its research.

Table 6.—Approximate Personnel Allocations to Program Categories for Three Agencies—NOAA, Navy, DOl —

Fiscal Year 1980

Technology Ocean -

- Weather/ Energy/ Environmental Fishery Public Management Agenc y

Agency development sciences climat e mineral quality resourc e service enforcement suppor t Total

DOI . . . . . . . . . . 0 3 0

-

300 ‘--

- —

150 300- 300 875 396 2,324

NOAA. . . . . . . . 141 26 294 0 143 1,509 641 635 1,315 4,704

Navy. . . . . . . . . 70 672 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,230 3,972

Total. . . . . . . 211 701 294 300 293 1,809 941 1,510 4,941 11,000

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment
Chapter 3

Discussion of Technologies
Contents

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Oceanographic Ships. ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Manned Submersibles and ROVs , . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Buoy, Moored, and Ocean-Floor Systems . . . . . . . 42

Equipment and Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Satellites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Oceanic Data Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Current Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Age.., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Size and Length Comparison With Foreign

Oceanographic Fleets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Costs . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Present and Future Plans for Ships. . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Alternative Plans for Future Ship Operations ..,. 59

Submersibles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Manned Submersibles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Comparison of Submersible Capabilities. . . . . . . . 70

Remotely Operated Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Buoy, Moored, and Ocean-Floor Systems . . . . . . 75

Buoys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Moored Systems. . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . ,. . . 78

Ocean-Floor ystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Other Vehicles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

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

Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Satellites ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● . ● ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Operational Weather Satellites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Recent Satellite Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...101

Federal Agency Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101

Aircraft v. Spacecraft. . . . . . . . . .............103

Helicopters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Ocean Data Systems . .....................105

Data Archival Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

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

TABLES

Table No. Page

7. Federal Ocean Research Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

8. The Academic Fleet(UNOLS) . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

9. Ships of the NOAA Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

10. The Navy Oceanographic Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . 48

11. The Federal Research Fleet–

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

12.

13.

14,

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27,

28,

Number of Ships Reaching Age 25 in

Next 20 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Length and Age Characteristics of

Major World Oceanographic Research

Fleets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Oceanographic Fleet Replacement

Cost Estimates in Millions of Dollars in

the Next 20 Years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Oceanographic Fleet Operating Cost

Comparison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Academic and NOAA Fleet

Comparison of Daily Ship Operating

costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Federally Owned and Operated U.S.

Submersibles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Costs for Navy Submersibles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

U.S. Private-Sector Submersibles . . . . . . . . . . 69

Foreign Government-Supported

Submersibles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Foreign Private-Sector Submersibles. . . . . . . . 71

ROV Applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

U.S. Government-Supported ROVs . . . . . . . . 73

U.S. Satellites of Utility in Ocean,

Coastal, and Polar Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Measurement Needs for

Oceanographic Satellites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Satellite Sensor Records of Interest in

Ocean, Coastal, and Polar Monitoring. . . . . . 93

Geophysical Oceanographic

Measurement Design Capabilities for

Seasat-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Aircraft and Sensors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....101

FIGURES

Figure No. Page

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

Design for Two New Coastal Research

. .

Ships for the Academic Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Design for New NOAA Fisheries

Research Ship, Chapman. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Schedule of NOAA Ships for Fiscal

Year 1981 Showing Major Time

Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Intermediate Mooring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Deep-Sea Surface Mooring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Bottom Mooring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Polar-Orbiting Satellite Subsystem . . , . . . . . . 94

Geostationary Satellite System . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Proposed Global Geostationary

Satellite System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

The Seasat-A Spacecraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Chapter 3

Discussion of Technologies

INTRODUCTION

There is no single technology system that is

best suited for oceanographic research. A variety

of federally supported ships, satellites, buoys,

submersibles, and other technologies are used for

oceanographic research and collection of data at

sea. These technologies, plus the equipment, instrumentation, and other systems that are carried

aboard or are part of them, comprise the ocean

technology reviewed for this assessment. The objective of this chapter is to describe the status of

this technology; to present existing data on the

characteristics, costs, and uses of the equipment

and systems; and to provide a brief analysis of

capabilities. The chapter is divided into major

sections addressing:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Ships;

Submersibles;

Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs);

Buoy, Moored, and Ocean-Floor Systems;

Equipment and Instrumentation;

Satellites;

Aircraft; and

Oceanic Data Systems.

Stations and instrument systems used in ocean

research can only be evaluated in the context of

specific tasks to be accomplished. Since ocean

research covers such a broad spectrum of activities, it is difficult to compare the suitability or

cost effectiveness of different technologies. Experimentation and data collection most often require a combination of systems and techniques.

The following description of technologies by type

includes both principal systems in use today as

well as those which have growing future applications. It is followed by more detailed discussions

of the Federal assemblage of technologies and the

future plans for each type.

Oceanographic Ships

Ships are used by oceanographers

personnel and instrumentation to

periments at sea. As both transport

for carrying

conduct ex

vehicles and

floating laboratories, they are used for taking

physical and chemical samples from the ocean,

for deploying oceanographic instruments, for

collecting data over large ocean areas, and for

implanting and supporting other fixed and unmanned stations or smaller vehicles, such as submersibles, data buoys, remotely operated stations

(fixed or floating), and diving systems.

Federally supported oceanographic vessels include 79 ships greater than 65 ft in length. The

Federal fleet is comprised of a variety of types

and is supported by six Federal agencies and programs. The total annual operating cost for all of

the fleet is $130 million in 1979 dollars. A major

problem now facing the fleet is the rapidly

escalating operating costs caused by fuel price increases.

During the next 20 years, 95 percent of the

Federal fleet will reach the age of 25. Economic

studies indicate that it will be cost effective to

rehabilitate or replace these vessels once they

reach the point of technical obsolescence — about

15 to 20 years of age. Since replacement of the

entire fleet of 79 vessels would cost about $1.4

billion in 1979 dollars, a policy of very selective

new construction and rehabilitation of existing

vessels will be required over the next 20 years.

Most oceanographers agree that a mix of various types of ships will be needed for the foreseeable future to conduct both deep-ocean and

coastal research. As research priorities change,

some newer (or less used) types will probably be

developed. Among these are:

● Polar research ships with ice-working capabilities: While much planning has been done

on polar ships, no major program has developed to support the construction of such a

ship. The technology for working in ice from

surface stations requires both engineering

development and transfer of technology

from other fields.

41

80-710 0 - 81 - 4
42 . Technology and Oceanography

● Adaptations of offshore oil and gas technology in industry to Federal oceanographic

Programs: The Ocean Margin Drilling Program (OMDP) is an example of plans to

adapt and improve industrial technology for

science. Many other commercial systems

could be useful for Federal oceanic programs, either by adapting stations themselves or by developing cooperative projects,

● Sail Powered ships: Commercial fishermen

are planning and building vessels with auxiliary or full sailpower to reduce fuel costs.

The National Research Council’s Ocean Sciences Board is studying sailpowered research

ships.

● Tugs and barges: Towing various stations by

one prime mover could be used by a number

of ocean survey and monitoring projects and

might reduce energy consumption.

Manned Submersibles and ROVs

Manned submersibles are specialized vehicles

used for some ocean research projects where

direct human observation in the deep ocean is required. At present there are only five manned

submersibles federally funded to do ocean research. Only one submersible, the Akin, i s

funded by Federal agencies for private-sector

(non-Navy) research.

Although in the past decade manned submersibles were considered the most promising research tool of the future, it now appears that

more attention will be given to remotely operated

or other unmanned vehicles and platforms for

many specialized data collection and monitoring

tasks.

The value of manned and unmanned (remotely operated) submersibles for specific research

projects has been demonstrated, but the cost and

complexity of operating deep-ocean submersibles

make alternatives or improvements attractive.

Some new developments which may be useful in

the future include:

● Improved systems for handling and providing surface support to submersibles to expand possible applications and to reduce

operational complexity.

●

●

Greater use of military systems or techniques

for civilian research programs which could

benefit from the substantial military capabilities (such as on the NR-1– Navy’s Nuclear Research Submersible), but not detract

from military missions.

Development of improved ROVs, possibly

adapted from recent military or industrial

systems, to improve Federal capabilities for

specific applications.

Buoy, Moored, and Ocean-Floor

Systems

Buoy, moored, and ocean-floor systems are instrumented systems for unmanned data collection, particularly at and below the ocean surface

over a long period of time. They are thus invaluable for certain kinds of meteorological

observations and for oceanic measurements of

currents, tides, sediment transport, and seismic

activity. In some cases, these systems can be

sophisticated and are functional for more than a

year. In other cases, they are relatively short-lived

and simple, and may even be expendable.

Communication technology for buoys and

other moored or free-floating systems has developed to the point where these systems are being more heavily utilized for routine surface and

subsurface oceanographic data collection. Satellite data links currently provide near real-time

access to moored and drifting buoys on a global

scale. As a result, buoys are used extensively in

worldwide monitoring of oceanographic and meteorological conditions. The National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Data

Buoy Office operates 19 large civilian U.S. buoys

in U.S. coastal waters. Although several of the

discus-type buoys have been lost due to toppling,

sinking, and other reasons, overall performance

of the large moored buoys has been steadily improving.

In the future, drifting buoys may be used

increasingly for monitoring ocean surface and

subsurface conditions. They have been successfully launched from aircraft and have provided

excellent data in experiments such as the Global

Weather Experiment and the North Pacific Experiment at Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies ● 43

Equipment and Instrumentation

A variety of equipment and instrumentation is

carried on oceanographic research and survey

ships.

Oceanographic instrumentation includes

many types of sensors, the selection of which

depends on the mission. In 1974, NOAA prepared an inventory of the U.S. stock of sensors

and found there were about 21,000 sensor instruments of 34 generic types.

New oceanographic instrumentation techniques will probably be enhanced by the changes

taking place in the field of electronics. Discrete

components are being replaced by microchips.

New electro-optic techniques are assisting in

analytical chemistry. Both of these are assisting

in the making of smaller, more reliable instrumentation. Ocean instruments may be developed or improved using these techniques. Examples of these and other aspects of new technology development for instruments are the

following:

● Automated data telemetry for deeply placed

instruments could improve their usefulness

and reduce ship support time. Acoustic telemetry is used with some instruments to

ascertain immediately after emplacement if

the instrument is functioning properly.

Some instruments enable a ship to query a

bottom-mounted instrument to obtain the

data that has been stored, and acoustic telemetry is being developed to transmit the

data to a surface buoy. The retransmission

of that data to a satellite and on to a data

center could be accomplished in the near

future.

● A series of techniques are being developed

for profiling the ocean, such as free-fall current profilers, other shipboard acoustic

remote-sensing techniques, as well as large

moored arrays with acoustic sensors.

● Of particula r interest to biological and

chemical oceanographers are ways to sample

water more rapidly at depths down to 800 m

by towed, underway sampling systems. Continuous analytical chemical instrumentation

systems from nonoceanographic laboratory

and industrial chemical processing plants

●

●

are being adapted to onboard analysis to

provide near real-time measurements.

In geological instrumentation, academia

has developed such tools as the hydraulic

piston corer and the very large free-fall

corer. Geological research may require extensions of these as well as technology used

by industry in offshore petroleum exploration. Industry has developed very long, towed, multichannel geophysical arrays,

acoustical sources, and multichannel analysis computers.

Understanding the perturbations of the

ocean environment and, in turn, its effects

on acoustic transmission in the ocean continues to be a major effort. In the past most

of this effort was to advance undersea warfare. Emphasis in the future is to use

acoustics to measure ocean-current density

and temperature variations better and to aid

in biological resource assessments. Efforts in

acoustic tomography may lead to large-scale

arrays useful for physical, chemical, and

biological oceanography.

Satellites

Satellites can measure ocean surfaces globally,

providing data on a synoptic and timely basis.

Some very large-scale ocean research projects–

limited at present to sea-surface phenomena –

can only be accomplished at reasonable cost by

satellite.

Meteorological and oceanographic satellites

began with the launch of Sputnik I by the

U.S.S.R. in 1957. The first U.S. satellite series,

Explorer and Vanguard, both carried meteorological experiments. The National Aeronautics

and Space Administration (NASA) continued the

development of operational meteorological satellites throughout the 1960’s with its Nimbus series

of research spacecraft. The last of that series,

Nimbus-7, is currently operating.

In 1978 a research spacecraft, Seasat-A, d e -

signed for continuous monitoring of the world’s

oceans, was launched. The sensor systems of Seasat produced real-time data for determining

ocean-surface winds, sea -surface temperatures,

waveheights, ice conditions, ocean topography,
and coastal storms. Seasat-A failed prematurely

in October 1978. The next planned oceanographic satellite, the National Oceanographic

Satellite System (NOSS), is scheduled for launching in 1986. Since it will not be possible to satisfy

all oceanic research and operational data collection needs with NOSS, it appears that the following new technologies or adaptation of technologies from other fields may be beneficial in the

future:

● Testing and development of research satellites in addition to NOSS for developing

qualified sensors and measurement techniques for operational use.

● Continual use of ocean surface and subsurface sensors to provide satellite ground

truth to validate synoptic sea-surface data

from satellites.

● Data-handling technology to cope with the

voluminous data flow from satellites to user

networks.

Aircraft

Aircraft are used to a limited extent for oceanographic research and survey work. Like satellites, they permit a synoptic overview of oceansurface conditions. Even though aircraft operations are sometimes interrupted during adverse

weather conditions, aircraft provide large payload capacity long-range, and adequate aerial

coverage. They have been used for laying airdroppable instruments (such as buoy systems and

arctic ice sensors), detecting ocean pollutants,

measuring gravity and magnetic fields, measuring sea-surface conditions with high resolution,

investigating hurricanes, and conducting research on marine mammals. Aircraft offer certain advantages in oceanic research or survey

programs of the future.

Aircraft may become important stations for

both sensor evaluation and scientific and applied

oceanographic purposes. They may immediately

be used for chlorophyll research as an alternative

or supplement to satellites. They could also be

used to reduce ship time for such operations as

implanting buoy systems and free-fall ocean profiling sensors. Fixed-wing aircraft could operate

in the Arctic and Antarctic where for a large part

of the year ships, except for the largest of icebreakers, are immobilized.

Oceanic Data Systems

Many Federal agencies are involved in the

collection of oceanographic data. Although

NOAA’s Environmental Data and Information

Service is the first agency specifically created to

manage oceanographic data and information for

use by Federal, State, and local agencies and the

general public, it is currently chartered only to

archive data from existing stations. Since there is

a growing need for more current, near real-time

environmental data, increased data volume in

the future will require new organizations and

management methods for data cataloging, storage, archiving, and distribution.

Computers

This study has not addressed computers as a

separate category of oceanographic technology.

There are indications, however, that computers

will play an increasingly important role in

oceanographic research. Volumes of data from

satellites and other ocean-monitoring systems require large computational capabilities for storage and handling. Numerical modeling of complex oceanic processes–such as heat transfer between the sea and the atmosphere — require the

capability of large computers. Several groups are

investigating the need for computers, especially

very large capacity computers, in oceanography

and how best to meet this need.

Navigation

Satellite navigation, used by all major oceanographic ships, has revolutionized ship-position

data. Continued development of oceanographic

systems will make further use of satellite navigation technology.

● The new global satellite navigation system,

GPS/NAVSTAR, is expected to improve

oceanographic data-acquisition systems considerably by making position fixes available

more frequently and by providing greater

accuracy. The system will particularly aid

navigation in the Arctic, although that was
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies ● 45

not a prime objective of the system when it ● There may be improvements in acoustic

was planned. Early development models of navigation systems for submersibles and

NAVSTAR receivers will be tested in fiscal ROVs through refinement of present systems

year 1981. The total worldwide system is ex- to improve reliability and position accuracy.

pected to be operational in 1986.
46 ● Technology and Oceanography

SHIPS

As of October 1980, the Federal fleet consists

of 79 oceanographic research ships operated by

or under the sponsorship of six Federal agencies.

In addition, two new ships are under construction. One ship has just been built, and three

others are in special status described later in this

report.

The Federal fleet is a fleet in name only because of the diversity of its management, uses,

and characteristics. In evaluating and comparing

ship sizes within the fleet, it is important to note

that a difference in length in a ship can significantly affect its capabilities. Large ships (over

200 ft) operate more safely and efficiently in the

deep ocean in bad weather and can accommodate large scientific parties. Moreover, they are

able to handle more than one type of over-theside equipment, a necessity for interdisciplinary

studies. A disadvantage of large ships is their fuel

requirement. Smaller ships (less than 200 ft) use

less fuel, but cannot cope with rough seas nor

handle a variety of gear. They are, however, effective for some estuarine and coastal studies.

Table 7 lists the numbers and sizes of operating

research and survey ships over 65 ft that were

federally funded as of January 1980. Some arbitrary exclusions were made from the list.

The Academic fleet has the greatest number of

ships and is operated by universities and academic institutions around the United States. It is

supported primarily by funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Office

of Naval Research (ONR) (table 8) and is engaged principally in basic research. Next in size is

NOAA’s fleet (table 9), which is the principal

Federal civilian survey and research fleet. It is

operated by NOAA’s National Ocean Survey out

of east and west coast operational facilities and is

directed toward more applied research work (and

substantial survey work) than the academic fleet.

Although NOAA’s fleet is smaller in number

than the academic fleet, it is greater in overall

tonnage (thus having more large ships). The

Navy fleet has fewer ships than either of the

preceding groups, but is considerably larger in

tonnage because of its very large ships. Navy’s

fleet is engaged in research and surveys directed

toward military missions (table 10). The Coast

Guard fleet, listed next, consists mainly of icebreakers, which only incidentally are engaged in

ocean research, however, these are the only U.S.

ships capable of work in the polar regions when

icebreaking and navigation is required. Other

Coast Guard cutters are fitted with oceanographic and meteorological instrumentation and laboratory space and are all used on occasion to support research projects. EPA’s fleet of three small

vessels — two in the Great Lakes and one on the

east coast — is engaged primarily in ocean monitoring. The two U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

vessels, next on the list, are operated out of the

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

Number Size range Total tonnage

Group of ships (length in feet) (displacement)

Academic fleet (UNOLS) . . . . . . . . . . . 27 65-245 23,000

NOAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 90-300 32,700

Navy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 210-565 87,200

Coast Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 180-400 50,400

EPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 124-165 1,000

USGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 180-210 2,200

NSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 125 600

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

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

2 Under Coast Guard, only one oceanographic cutter (Evergreen) and SIX Icebreakers are listed. In addition, all of

Coast Guard’s 40+ seagoing cutters have some oceanographic capablllty, but are not often used for this purpose.

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies ● 47

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

.————

Built/ Number of

Operator Name LOA (ft) converted scientists Owner —

University of Hawaii Kana Keoki 156 1967 16 U.H.

Moana Wave — 174 1973 13 ——-—.— Navy ——

University of Alaska Alpha Helix 133 1966 12 NSF ——.————— ——. . — — — ———.

University of Washington T. G. Thompson 209 1965 19 Navy

Hoh 65 1943/1962 6 Navy

Onar 65 1954/1963 6 Navv

Oregon State University Wecoma 177 1975 16 NSF

Moss Landing Marine Laboratories Cayuse 80 1968 8 Osu

University of Southern California Velero I V 110 1948 12 Usc

University of California, San Diego Melville 245 1970 31 Navy

Scripps Institution of Oceanography E. B. Scripps 95 1965 8 U.c.

T. Washington 209 1965 23 Navy

New Horizon— 170 1978 13 u. c.—

University of Michigan — — —Laurentian 80 1974 10 U.M.———

Texas A&M University Gyre 174 1973 18 Navy ——— ——————

—— —— University of Texas Longhorn 80 1971 10 U.T. — —— —— — —

University of Miami —————— Iselin 170 1972 13 —————— U.M.

University of Georgia ————..—— —.. ——-— Blue Fin 72 1972/1975 8 U.G.

Duke University East ward 118 1964 15 D.U.

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

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

Columbia University Conrad 209 1962 18 Navy

(Lamont-Doherty Geological

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

University of Rhode Island

——————

Endeavor 177 1976 16 NSF

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Atlantis II

Knorr

Oceanus

210 1963 25 WHOI

245 1969 23 Navy

177 1975 12 NSF

SOURCE Unlverslty National Oceanographic Laboratory System

west coast and are engaged in geologic research

on the Outer Continental Shelf. Last, NSF has a

small wooden ship engaged in Antarctic research

during the southern summer.

In addition, two new coastal research ships

funded by NSF are under construction. They are

to be added to the academic fleet for operation

by the University of Miami and by a consortium

of Duke University (which will lay up the Eastward) and the University of North Carolina

(figure 3). The contract for these two 130-ft long

ships was negotiated in June 1980. The University

of Miami has retired its much larger vessel (the

Gillis–208 ft). Another coastal research ship of

the same size is being planned by NSF, but because of operational funding shortages NSF is

planning to reprogram fiscal year 1981 construction funds to operations.

Another ship, recently built, is a 127-ft long

fisheries research ship for NOAA’s Pacific fleet of

fisheries ships (figure 4).

The following three ships, engaged in or proposed for NSF programs, have special uses and

are not included in the tables:

●

●

Glomar Challenger: A large, deep-ocean

drilling ship, owned and operated by a private company, but under charter to NSF for

the Deep-Sea Drilling Project (DSDP).

Glomar Explorer: A ship originally built for

the Central Intelligence Agency to recover a

Russian submarine now owned by Navy and

recently chartered by an industrial group

engaged in ocean-mining experiments. This

ship is proposed for the next phase of deepocean drilling bv NSF.
48 . Technology and Oceanography

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

— —

Class

I

I

I

I

II

II

II

II

Ill

Ill

Ill

Ill

Ill

Ill

Iv

Iv

Iv

Iv

Iv

Iv

v

v

v

VI

Vessel — —

Oceanographer

Discoverer

Researcher

Surveyor

Fairweather

Rainier

Mt. Mitchell

Miller Freeman

Peirce

Whiting

McArthur

Davidson

Oregon II

Albatross IV

George B. Kelez

Townsend Cromwell

David Starr Jordan

Delaware //

Ferrel

Chapman

Rude

Heck

John N. Cobb

Murre II

Base

Length (ft) Iocationa

303 PMC

303 PMC

278 AMC

292 PMC

231 PMC

231 PMC

231 AMC

215 PMC

163 AMC

163 AMC

175 PMC

175 PMC

170 AMC

187 AMC

177 AMC

164 PMC

171 PMC

156 AMC

133 AMC

127 PMC

90 AMC

90 AMC

94 PMC

86 PMC

Primary mission

Oceanography

Oceanography

Oceanography

Oceanography

Nautical charting

Nautical charting

Nautical charting

Fisheries research

Nautical charting

Nautical charting

Nautical charting/currents

Nautical charting

Fisheries research

Fisheries research

Oceanography

Fisheries research

Fisheries research

Fisheries Research

Currents

Fisheries research

Nautical charting

Nautical charting

Fisheries research

Fisheries research

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

Year built

Number of

scientists

1966

1966

1970

1960

1968

1968

1967

1967

1963

1963

1966

1967

1967

1962

1944

1963

1965

1968

1968

1980

1966

1966

1950

1943

30

24

14

16

4

4

4

11

2

2

2

2

15

15

5

9

13

9

0

6

0

0

4

5

SOURCE’ National Oceanic and AtmosDherlc Admtnlstration

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

—

Approximate

operating Year built Number of

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

AGOR Lynch 209 Atlantic Research 1964 15

AGOR De Steiguer 209 Pacific Research 1969 15

AGOR Bartlett 209 Atlantic Research 1969 15

AGS Silas Bent 285 Pacific General oceanography 1965 30

AGS Kane 285 Atlantic General oceanography 1967 30

AGS Wilkes 285 Indian General oceanography 1971 30

AGS Wyman 285 Atlantic Ocean survey 1971 30

AGS Chauvenet 393 Indian Coastal survey 1970 12

AGS Harkness 393 Carribean Coastal survey 1971 12

AGS Bowdich 455 Atlantic Ocean survey 1958 40

AGS Dutton 455 Pacific Ocean survey 1958 40

AGS Hess 564 Pacific Ocean survey 1977(C)

AGOR Hayes ●

—

246 Atlantic & Oceanographic research 1971 30

Pacific

AGOR Mizar•• 262 Classified Classified 1965(c) 15

AG Kingsport•• 455 Classified Classified 1950 15

NOTE The above excludes those Navy-owned ships whtch are part of the Academic fleet

“The Hayes IS operated In support of the Naval Research Laboratory.

““&f/zar and Kfngsport are assigned to programs of the Naval Electronics Systems Command

SOURCE U S Navy
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies ● 4 9

Figure

Main engines (2) caterpillar D-379 la, 540 hp ea.

L O A .131 ft L B P..124 ft.

Accommodations

SOURCE National Science Foundation

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

Designer & builder— Bender Welding & Machine Co.

Hull—welded steel, displacement—520 tons

Length— 127 ft, beam—30 ft, draft— 14 ft

Cruising speed— 11 knots, range—6,000 miles, power—1 ,250 shp

Complement—4 officers, 7 crew, 6 scientists

SOURCE Nattonal Oceanic and Atmospheric Admfnlstratlon
50 . Technology and Oceanography

● Eltanin: An Antarctic research ship which

has recently been returned from loan to the

Government of Argentina. NSF is considering its future use.

Current Uses

The 79 ships in the Federal fleet are used for a

variety of research and data-collection tasks.

Large ships can conduct diverse research projects

on a single cruise or on a series of successive

cruises, Some ships combine research with operational duties; e.g., Coast Guard icebreakers are

used where operational icebreaking is the primary mission and research is an important but

secondary mission. Other ships, like Navy’s survey vessels, collect both classified and unclassified

data during their at-sea research operations.

The general uses (simplified for this report) of

ships in the Federal fleet are shown in table 11.

An example of the variety of uses of NOAA’s fleet

is given in figure 5, which displays the proposed

fiscal year 1981 ship allocation plan.

Age

The condition of ships in the Federal fleet and

their potential replacement is a major concern

because of the substantial capital costs involved.

If a 25-year life is assumed for most of the reTable 11 .—The Federal Research Fleet—

Principal Uses

Numbers in use

Fleet group Uses categories

Academic. .

NOAA . . . . .

Navy . . . . . .

Coast Guard

EPA. . . . . . .

USGS . . . . .

NSF . . . . . .

Total. . . .

Basic oceanographic research 27

Surveys, charting 10

Fisheries research 9

General oceanographic

research 5

Surveys, charting 9

General oceanography

operations 6

Ice operations 6

Data buoy servicing

Patrol and oceanography (a;

Pollution monitoring 3

Marine geology 2

Antarctic research 1

79

search ships in this fleet, many current ships

would need replacement within the next 20 years.

Table 12 indicates when replacements would be

built if each ship were retired after 25 years service. Since aging characteristics are not uniform,

the table does not indicate a need for ship replacement nor the most effective plan for replacement if that need exists. Of note is the fact

that the academic fleet has ships that are newer

than those of the rest of the fleets.

Economic studies by NOAA indicate that even

though refurbishing and upgrading of key equipment is costly, it is an overall saving compared to

replacing the ships at age 25. This approach appears to have been adopted as cost-effective by

Navy with classes of warships. Furthermore,

NOAA’s analysis points out that there are no exact criteria for when to replace or to upgrade

ships. Navy’s experience with its Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization Program indicates technical obsolescence occurs at a ship age of about

15 years. NOAA estimates its oceanographic

ships might have a life of 25 years if no rehabilitation is made. At present, NOAA is considering

a rehabilitation plan for ships in its fleet which

are about 20 years old. This rehabilitation approach would shift the numbers in table 5 to later

years.

Size and Length Comparison With

Foreign Oceanographic Fleets

The oceanographic research ships of the world

over 100 ft in length are concentrated among

eight countries. The United States and the Soviet

Union, each with 34 research ships over 100 ft in

length, have the largest fleets. The other six

countries, Canada, France, the Federal Republic

of Germany, Great Britain, Japan, and Norway,

each have between 7 and 14 such research ships.

Some fleets, like that of Canada, are heavily

fishery-research oriented, Size and age characteristics of the large ships for these eight countries

are given in table 13. Data for this table was

] U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, FY 1980 Issue Paper Mzdltje Rehabilitation

and UPgrad(~ of NOAA Ships, prepared for Director, National

Ocean Survey, April 1978.

asome mlnlmal capability on all CutlerS.

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies 51

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

Ship I Oct Nov I

Dec I

Jan Feb Mar Apr I May June July Aug I

Sept

4

Legend: port time& repair s

 Fisheries survey s

_ Research program s

_ Chartin g

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admlnlstratlon

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

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

Academic . . . . 3 (10°/0) 9 (31%) 5 (l%) 10 (34%) 2 (8°/0)

NOAA. . . . . . . . 6 (25% 12 (50%) 6 (25%) — —

Navy. . . . . . . . . 4 (27%) 3 (2°/0) 4 (27%) 4 (27%) —

Coast Guard . . 5 (71 0/0) — — — 2 (29%)

EPA . . . . . . . . . 1 (33%) — 2 (67%) — —

USGS . . . . . . . . 1 (50%) — 1 (50% — —

NSF . . . . . . . . . — — 1 (10070) — —

Total. . . . . . . 20 (25%) 24 (30%) 19 (23%) 14(1 7°/0) 4 (5°/0)

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

taken from Janes Ocean Technology 19792 and

includes only research ships. Survey ships, which

vary widely from country to country in both size

and purpose and are sometimes pressed into research use, were not included.

There are about 17 other countries adjacent to

the sea that have between one and four oceano-

‘Robert L. ‘1’rillo (cd. ), Jane’ i Ocean Technology})” 1979-1980, 4th

cd, ( New l’ork: Franklin Watts, Inc. , 1979).

graphic research vessels each. Many of these have

been particularly important for both regional

studies and for international programs such as

the International Geophysical Year. These vessels

will become increasingly important for globaltype studies such as the World Climate Program.

Availability of charter ships is important in

considering ship supply. Industries in Great Britain, Norway, the Federal Republic of Germany,
52 . Technology and Oceanography

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

Ship-length distribution 1 Ship-age distribution

Over I Over 30

100-199 ft 200-299 ft 300-399 ft 400 ft 0-10 years 11-20 years 21-30 years years Total

Canada. . . . . . . .

Federal Republic

of Germany . .

France . . . . . . . .

Great Britain . . .

Japan . . . . . . . . .

Norway. . . . . . . .

United States. . .

U.S.S.R. . . . . . . .

8

3

9

6

4

6

22

7

3

4

3

6

5

1

10

16

.

1

2

—

2

4

2

—

—

—

—

—

—

7

1

3

7

5

4

4

10

11

10

:

7

4

1

19

8

2

2

1

2

6

—

—

—

—

—

—

5

13

7

13

14

9

7

34

34

NOTE. The U.S research ships in this table Include 20 from the academic fleet, 12 from the NOAA fleet, one NSF ship, and one Coast Guard ship

aLaunch dates were not available for many of the Russian ships

SOURCE. Off Ice of Technology Assessment.

France, and the United States offer charter ships

that are research-equipped. Generally, these are

smaller and more specialized ships such as seismic

survey ships. Sometimes they are former government research ships.

Important features of table 13 include:

● The U.S.S.R. fleet includes more ships over

300 ft in length (very large by U.S. standards) than do the fleets of all free world

countries combined.

● The fleets of the United States and the

U.S.S.R. have similar numbers at very new

(less than 10 years of age) and very old (over

30 years of age) ships.

costs

To evaluate the dollar value of the ships in the

Federal fleet, the present replacement costs for

each ship were estimated, and then the estimates

for the entire Federal fleet were tallied. These

estimates were based on original construction

costs (which were obtained from the agencies)

plus an inflation factor. This system was used by

NOAA in its recent report covering the ship rehabilitation plans, and the resulting costs are comparable to NSF’s University National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) estimates

contained in a report on replacement of the

fleet. 3

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

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

Table 14 illustrates the data on replacement

costs estimated as described. The costs shown do

not represent needs or plans, but do illustrate

relative replacement costs of the fleets in the

future if the present use continues without major

changes.

The total replacement cost of the entire 79-

ship fleet is $1.4 billion in 1979 dollars. If

replacement is spread over the next 20 years as

shown, it will present a sizable funding problem.

An important consideration is how to maintain

needed capabilities in this fleet at a lower cost.

To estimate operating costs for the Federal

fleet, the yearly fleet operating costs of the first

four largest fleet groups (for 1979) was estimated

using data supplied from the agencies (table 15).

The total annual operating costs of the entire

Federal fleet totaled about $130 million, which,

if no changes are made in the future, could represent funding of $3.6 billion in current dollars

over the next 20 years. Here again, Federal funding will undoubtedly limit this, and more costeffective future planning may be required. Table

16 presents comparative estimates of the daily

operating cost of the academic fleet and the

NOAA fleet for 1979.4

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

1%-olp(tt>d 1 !%1, tMay ~ 979.
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies ● 53

Table 14.—Oceanographic Fleet Replacement Cost Estimates in Million of Dollars

in the Next 20 Years (based on 1979 dollars)

Replacement year category

——————————— ---

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

. - ---

Academi c

NOAA .

Navy. . . . . . . .

Coast Guard .

E P A

USGS . . . . . . . .

NSF . . . . . . . . .

Totals. . . . . .

$ 10

60

160

230

5

5

—$470 .

$ 75

170

65

—

—

—

$310

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

Table 15.—Oceanographic Fleet Operating

Cost Comparison

Annual operating cost

Fleet group Millions of 1979 dollars

Navy . . . . . . . . 50

NOAA . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Academic Flee t 25

Coast Guard . 20

Total . 130

Number

of ships

15

24

27

7

73

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

Table 16.—Academic and NOAA Fleet Comparison

of Daily Ship Operating Costs (size in length in

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

Academic fleet NOAA fleeta

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

60-99 . . . . . . . . . 1.3 86 . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7

90-100 . . . . . . . . 2.3

100-149 . . . . . . . 3.2 133-170 . . . . . . . 4.1

150-200 . . . . . . . 4.7 163-187 . . . . . . . 6.2

215-231 . . . . . . . 10.3

Over 200. . . . . . 6.9 278-303 . . . . . . . 13.5

aNOAA ships are generally staffed with a~ermaneot CWW of Government

employees, Includlng technicians trained to meet ongoing NOAA mlsslons,

whereas, the academic fleet uses students as research asswtants at sea

SOURCES General Offshore Corp NOAA F/ee( MIX Study. FY 87. FY 84, FY 88.

prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admlnlstratlon,

Off Ice of Fleet Operations, contract No NA79SAC 00632, Aug 23.

1979, National Science Foundaf(on, UNOLS Fund/ng Prof//e, 7973 to

Projected 1981 May 1979

Present and Future Plans for Ships

Much of the Federal technology now in use by

the ocean community has been in place for many

years but has not had recent careful evaluation.

Although the need for seagoing vessels remains

and is somewhat expanded by the addition of new

$ 75 $ 170

120 — 350

175 — 400

— 220 450

30 — 35

10 — 15

5 — 5

$415 $230 $1,425

ways to examine the ocean, there exists a general

erosion of certain ship platform and research

capabilities that will worsen in the future if the

present trend continues. Most apparent in, but

not exclusively in, the deep-water academic fleet,

this erosion affects the ships themselves, the instrumentation and equipment aboard them, and

their general condition of repair. The Federal

agencies that have traditionally funded and supported oceanographic research and survey ships

have not developed comprehensive plans for the

fleets of the future; although planning is underway within the individual agencies and through

the new Federal Oceanographic Fleet Coordinating Council.

The Academic Fleet

NSF and ONR of the Navy are the principal

agencies that fund the academic fleet.

Three divisions within NSF support construction and operation of academic research ships.

The Division of Ocean Sciences funds the academic fleet, the Division of Earth Sciences funds

the Glomar Challenger, which is used for DSDP;

and the Division of Polar Programs funds Antarctic research ships (one small ship at present).

Each of these divisions uses a different management approach. More than two-thirds of the cost

of operating the academic fleet is funded by NSF

grants to the operating institutions on an annual

basis. Ship-time funding is determined by the

level of NSF-funded science projects requiring

ship time. Navy owns nine of the ships in the academic fleet, including all but one of the largest

class of ships and all but two of the next largest

class; and supports 10 to 15 percent of the oper-
54 ● Technology and Oceanography

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

D/V Glomar Challenger, under contract to NSF, is utilized

in the Deep Sea Drilling Project and managed by

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

ating costs of the academic fleet through research

project funding.

Additional funds for the academic fleet are

provided by other Federal agencies (10 to 15 percent) and from States and private groups. Some

ships are federally owned and some are not, but

all are operated by individual institutions with

their own personnel and management.

In July 1978, UNOLS made some recommendations on the size and composition of the academic fleet. The projections suggested that the

basic size of the fleet required little change in the

short run because the research budget was very

stable, Since emphasis would be placed on research in coastal and continental margin waters,

more and better equipped coastal vessels would

be required. Larger ships would be needed for

coastal work in the winter, for multidisciplinary

studies in all areas, and for distant water and

open-ocean operations.

UNOLS also proposed a program of orderly

renovation and modification of vessels to maintain the fleet. It suggested that an annual expenditure of $3 million over the next 15 years

would be adequate to replace intermediate and

smaller vessels and that additional funding of

about $48 million would be required for replacing four major vessels which should be retired between 1982 and 1993.

NSF’s Division of Ocean Sciences Ship Plans.

– With advice from academic institutions, particularly through UNOLS, NSF’s Division of

Ocean Sciences periodically reviews the current

and future uses and needs of the academic fleet in

order to effect changes in the fleet, including the

construction of new ships and the retirement of

old ones. In 1979 the Division of Ocean Sciences

made several analyses of trends and of the nearterm future of the academic fleet. The analyses

noted that the downward trend in ship use for

scientific funding support could only be changed

by a massive increase in field research support. 5

This conclusion led to the decision to support

construction of new coastal ships (135-ft size

range) and encouraged the retirement of at least

one large ship (AGOR class, 208 ft). Two coastal

vessels are now under construction. G The first will

be operated by the University of Miami; the second will be operated by a Duke University and

University of North Carolina consortium.

At present, the Division of Ocean Sciences concludes:

1.

2.

3.

There are no major new demands for ship

time over the next 5 years, mainly because

future funding of ocean sciences is expected to remain level;

There is more potential demand for

smaller ships than for larger ships because

of a reduction of major field projects in

geology, chemistry, and physical oceanography; and

There are more possibilities of projects in

the fields of coastal biology and pollution.

It should be noted that the first conclusion is in

contrast to those of the Division of the Earth

Sciences and the Division of Polar Programs,

both of which anticipate major new projects requiring new large ships.

Over the next 5 years, NSF has projected $4

million to $5 million per year for capital addi-

—.

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

port on Oceanic Research Facili[im, ” draft paper, June 1979,

bN’atiOnal Science Fou ndat ion, Project Solicitation, “Construct ion

and Opcv at ion of a Coastal Research Ship, ” k-ebruarv ] 979,
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies ● 55

Photo credit .Skwpps Institution of Oceanography

Two of the larger, deep-ocean ships of the Academic Fleet

are the At/antis // (top) from Woods Hole Oceanographic

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

of Oceanography

tions to the academic fleet. About $1 million to

$1.5 million of this is planned for ship equipment, such as winches, wire, and navigation

equipment. This leaves about $3 million plus per

year, or about the cost of one coastal ship per

year. In the near term, however, a shortage of

ship operating funds and an increase in fuel

costs, not evident when UNOLS projections were

made, may require NSF to reprogram capital

funds to the operating accounts. Moreover, there

is serious concern among the oceanographic research institutions that funding for current ship

operations is so limited that more major ships

with valuable and unique capabilities will be

retired. There is particular concern that an adequate large ship capability in the academic fleet

be maintained. Much of the research completed

in the International Decade of Ocean Exploration in the 1970’s was performed on large ships

because many of the field projects were interdisciplinary, long-term, and long-range in nature

and required a large crew of scientists and technicians. It is believed that to accomplish much of

the future research work in fisheries, climate,

pollution, geology, and basic research programs,

large (seagoing) ships must be available.

NSF’s Division of Polar Programs Shi p

Plans. –This program principally supports

oceanographic and geologic projects in the Antarctic region and currently operates one small

ship, the Hero, which has limited capabilities for

major research work or for ice operations. NSF’s

Division of Ocean Sciences also supports cruises

by some of the academic fleet for Antarctic work

with funds from the Division of Polar Programs.

Most of the academic ships and NOAA ships that

now work in the high latitudes are not designed

for even cold water operations. Much effort has

been invested over the past several years to develop a suitable polar research ship (or ships) as a

possible addition to the academic fleet.

7 I n -

creased attention to the Arctic was the prime

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

sity of Alaska, May 1977.

Photo credit Wm R Curtsinger

NSF’s R/V Hero, a small wooden ship with limited

capabilities, faces major tasks in the frozen

Antarctic waters
56 . Technology and Oceanography

motivation for the effort; however, the Division

of Polar Programs is now principally focused in

the Antarctic where there is a growing interest in

Antarctic living resources, especially krill.

The iceworking capabilities of any polar ship

are usually limited. None of NSF’s designs for a

polar research ship would be as capable in heavy

ice as are existing Coast Guard icebreakers;

although the new ship design could operate in

moderate ice of 1.5-ft thickness, could do some

icebreaking, and would also have capabilities in

rough, open-ocean waters.

Instead of constructing a new polar research

ship, the Division of Polar Programs may refurbish the Eltanin, an ice-strengthened ship. When

NSF compared the cost and resulting capabilities

between constructing a new ship or refurbishing

and upgrading the Eltanin, it concluded that the

Eltanin could be refurbished and upgraded for

approximately one-third of the cost of the new

ship. Refurbishment, operation, and maintenance costs of the Eltanin will begin to exceed

those of a new ship by 1990.8 In mid-1980, funding for the conversion of the Eltanin was favored,

but no final decision has yet been announced.

NSF’s Division of Earth Sciences Ship

Plans. – In this division, DSDP utilizing the

Glomar Challenger is scheduled to be phased out

‘Ha rbrid~e }{0u5e, Inc. , “F.ltanin Cost Analysis, ” prepared for

National Science Foundation. November 1979.

Phofo credft National Sc/ence Foundation

R/V Eltanin, now inactive, was constructed in 1957 as an

ice-strengthened cargo ship and converted in 1961

to a research ship for the Antarctic

in fiscal year 1982, and OMDP is scheduled to

take over where the Challenger left off. Since

OMDP is a major new initiative in technology development and ocean science, OTA has presented an evaluation of it in a later section of this

report. The plans include the conversion of a ship

(Glomar Explorer) for deep-sea drilling. This

program overshadows most of the other plans for

oceanographic ships in NSF and could affect

funds available for other ocean science programs

and facilities.

Navy Academic Ship Plans. –The Navy is

now examining its future role in support of

oceanographic ships. It continues to have a

strong interest in basic military oceanographic

research, which has traditionally been accomplished by several oceanographic institutions.

Funding of this research, however, has not kept

pace with inflation over the last decade and is

now projected to continue into the 1980’s at

about the present level. Future Navy funding of

new ship construction for research institution use

is not in the present plans. It is hoped, in cooperation with NSF, to fund the upgrading and new

equipment needs for Navy-owned, academically

operated ships. Navy will also consider on a caseby-case basis sharing the upgrading costs for

those ships owned by NSF or by the institutions

themselves. Navy cites two factors as justification

for this support: 1) there is a need to maintain

capabilities in locations important to Navy; and

2) other programs may not cover high latitude

areas and open oceans far from U.S. shores.

These basic research needs also support a need

for the larger oceanographic ships.

In 1980, Navy proposed $2.3 million in its fiscal year 1981 budget for upgrading the scientific

suite and major midlife overhaul for Navy-owned

academic research ships. This will be a planned

budget item for the next 4 to 5 years.

NOAA and Other Agency Fleet Plans

NOAA’s operational ships have been studied

and reviewed several times recently. In August

1979 a fleet-mix study prepared by an outside

contractor, but not released by NOAA, projected

needs and costs through fiscal year 1980 for

oceanographic ships. It found that NOAA’s fleet

was reasonably appropriate for the existing
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies ● 57

NOAA program needs; and only a shift to smaller sizes, the addition of a few ships, and some efforts to modernize were needed to satisfy future

research and data-collection needs. The study

recommended a variety of approaches for upgrading the fleet, including some rehabilitation,

some construction of smaller ships to replace

larger ones, and more long-term chartering to fill

the gaps. g NOAA is now studying three aspects of

that study to define more accurately its needs, including:

1. whether to charge specific programs for

ship costs rather than to fund all the ships

from one large account;

2. the possibilities of long-term charters or

other chartering changes; and

3. new program requirements (for fisheries,

pollution, climate) for future ships and

other technology.

— — . . —

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

F }’ //#, prepar(d for NOAA, Office of Fleet Operations, contra(-t

N(). N)4-79-SAC6MM32> Au~, !23, 1979.

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

NOAA’s survey ships: (top) McArthur, 175-ft long and

the 303-ft long Oceanographer

NOAA projects fleet operations expenditures

to continue at about the same level into the near

future, with ship operating costs equally divided

between east and west coast bases (Norfolk and

Seattle).

10 In the fiscal year 1981 budget, it

allocated $3.5 million for upgrading and rehabilitation of some ships as part of its plan to

upgrade 15 ships, including 3 of its 4 large ones,

during the 1980’s.

The missing aspects of all of the recent studies

by NOAA are considerations of major new research problems, of coordination with academia,

and of consolidation of NOAA ship needs with

those of other agencies. NOAA has established

an internal working group to examine these

issues. In a letter to OTA, NOAA claimed that

its present study proposes a set of decisions based

on NOAA’s best projection of future requirements of the fleet over the next decade. Some of

these future NOAA research needs can be found

in its fisheries program, development of plans for

pollution monitoring, and the emergence of a

need for information concerning the global

ocean’s physical structure and circulation in con

nection with the climate program. NOAA wil

also examine relevant marine programs to deter

mine possible changes in ship requirements anc

will offer a reasonable set of options for projecting demands. It will also consider the effect of

changes in technology and of the use of other stations, such as buoys or satellites, on ship requirements.

The Navy Oceanographic Fleet

There is a continuing need for Navy to conduct

surveys and to collect oceanographic data to support fleet operations. This is separate from Navy

research sponsored in the academic fleet in which

most of Navy’s oceanographic fleet (9 out of 15

ships) are engaged.

Four ships conduct research work at Navy laboratories, the Lynch, De Steiguer, Bartlett, and

Hayes, and two ships are used in the Naval Electronic System programs, the Mizar an d

Kingsport. Much of this work is classified, and

80-710 0 - El - 5
58 . Technology and Oceanography

Photo credits. US, Navy

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

future ship needs will be determined by the programs they support. Currently some Navy labs

use academic or other vessels. One future change

is that the Naval Oceanographic Research and

Development Administration (NORDA) may be

assigned the major oceanographic research ships

in Navy’s fleet and thus have operational responsibility for them.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Fleet

EPA owns and operates three ships engaged in

applied research work — two in the Great Lakes

and one on the east coast — and has invested

about $300,000 each to convert them for its use.

The Great Lakes ships are used principally for

water quality studies. Presently, only one of them

is in service. They are each operated by a private

company under a 3-year contract.

The east coast vessel, the Antelope, is engaged

in surveys of dump sites for EPA’s ocean-dumping permit program. EPA claims that its dump

site survey ship is more cost effective than other

alternatives, such as ship time from other agencies. It may be that agencies with specific research programs, such as EPA, can more efficiently provide their own ships for their purposes,

but there is no available evaluation of the cost

effectiveness of this approach versus that of using

the Federal Government’s established research

fleet operators.

Future plans for EPA ships are not certain.

There appears to be a long-term need for the

services of at least one vessel on the Great Lakes

for EPA’s water quality program, one ship on the

east and gulf coasts for the ocean-dumping permit program, and one ship (possibly chartered)

on the west coast. At present EPA has no specific

plans for the long-term future operation or expansion of its fleet. When the 3-year contracts for

the existing ships expire, EPA will decide on a

next step.

7

Photo credit. Env/ronmental Protect/on Agency

Environmental Protection Agency’s Antelope
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies . 59

Coast Guard Fleet

Coast Guard’s icebreakers can support research operations and are used for this purpose

by several other agencies, including Navy, NSF,

and NOAA. Coast Guard also operates one research ship used principally for its own missions.

Future plans for the Coast Guard fleet include

maintaining the capability for its mission of

breaking ice for defense and civilian missions and

surveying and tracking ice that may be hazardous

to navigation. Oceanographic research, however,

does not appear to play an important role in

plans for future ships, partly because many scientists feel that icebreakers are not suitable for

research and that their operational management

is incompatible with research missions.

New icebreakers to replace the Wind class in

the mid-1 980’s are now being designed. It may be

desirable to coordinate the design work with the

design of polar research ships by NSF. Another

consideration is whether Coast Guard’s polar

fleet could be better configured for a variety of

ocean-science tasks in the Arctic and Antarctic,

either in lieu of or in support of other aforementioned polar research ship developments.

Photo credit U S Coast Guard

U.S. Coast Guard’s Polar Star can break ice 6-ft thick

while maintaining a 3-knot speed

USGS Fleet

The ships supported by USGS represent a small

portion of the entire Federal fleet, but do support

important marine resource survey work of this

agency in the Pacific and Alaskan areas. USGS

relies on other agencies, such as NOAA, and academic institutions to provide ship support when

needed.

In the Pacific and Alaskan OCS areas (until

fiscal year 1980), USGS operated two ships–one

for regional resource assessment, the other for environmental surveys. Because of fiscal constraints

in fiscal year 1980, USGS now operates only one

ship in these areas. USGS is presently evaluating

the cost effectiveness of either a dual-operational

role for the one ship, or the partial use of NOAA,

university, and charter vessels to meet mission requirements.

Alaska presents unique problems for USGS

work because its very large continental shelf and

complex environmental problems are coupled

with a short field season. At present, NOAA provides ship support to USGS in Alaska. In a recent

letter to OTA, USGS stated that in the long term,

an ice-strengthened vessel, fully committed to

USGS marine environmental surveys, should be

constructed. This commitment would require

multiyear funding for construction, operation,

and maintenance.

In the Atlantic OCS and the Gulf of Mexico,

USGS does not own or operate oceanographic

research vessels. Instead, through cooperation

with UNOLS, it uses university ships during the

relatively long field season.

Alternative Plans for Future

Ship Operations

The future structure, size, capability, and

research technology of the oceanographic fleet,

will be determined by the aforementioned plans

and by the research to be done. There are some

alternatives to present plans that are now under

study that may improve capabilities or reduce

costs.
60 ● Technology and Oceanography

Alternative Management Systems for

the Academic Fleet

Consistent, long-term planning and funding

by all principal agencies that use the academic

fleet may increase the operating efficiencies of

the fleet. Part of such a system of future fleet support is now in place in NSF and UNOLS. However, other agencies, principally Navy and perhaps NOAA, the Department of Energy (DOE),

and USGS, could be more involved in fleet planning than they are at present. Planning to this

end has begun through the Federal Oceanographic Fleet Coordinating Council.

NSF Management Practices. – NSF’s present

management system is designed to review

operation proposals each year (July through

November for the following year) after major

decisions are made on research projects requiring

ship time. Grants are then usually made to those

institutions operating ships for the total time that

the ships are to be used on NSF projects and are

based on the cost proposals submitted for the

ships. Navy (ONR) funds project time and ship

time together, but it makes decisions much later

in the planning cycle than NSF does. NSF and

Navy coordinate their processes informally. Some

agencies, such as USGS, regularly contract for

academic ship time by passing funds through

NSF. Other agencies, such as NOAA and DOE,

contract for academic ship time separately, with

little or no long-range coordination with NSF,

While this system seems to offer needed flexibility, some problems exist. ONR and NSF are

now working together to improve the coordination of ship funding and management practices.

If other agencies such as NOAA or DOE become

substantial users of academic ships in the future,

more coordination may be necessary.

NSF has gradually assumed the major Federal

responsibility for funding academic ships. Further efforts by NSF to coordinate other agency

use or to consolidate management and funding

procedures may result in increased use of academic ship at costs that are usually very competitive.

Future Academic Fleet Replacements. – The

bulk of the academic fleet is new enough not to

require replacement in the near term (less than 5

years). The present commitment to build two

coastal ships by NSF is of concern because it is at

the expense of the operation of other major ships

in the fleet. The major immediate concern about

this fleet is not for building new ships, but for

providing adequate funds to operate and maintain the present fleet.

.

NSF and ONR have jointly sponsored a study

by the Ocean Sciences Board of the National

Academy of Sciences to examine the future of the

academic research fleet. Several areas of fleet

management, composition, and operation will be

evaluated for both the short term and the long

term. Specifically, the study will address the

following issues: the long-term fleet size and mix,

namely, the number and size of general-purpose

vessels and special-purpose-vessel needs such as

dedicated geology and geophysical vessels and

high-latitude ships; an examination of the different approaches to fluctuations in fleet usage,

such as layups, leasing, buying of excess Federal

agency fleet time, and other options; a description of the different modes of fleet operation according to local, regional, and Federal agency

practices; the acquisition of new vessels by new

construction, a refit of federally owned vessels, or

leasing; an examination of vessel maintenance,

refitting, and upgrading; and the different approaches to the review and funding of ship needs.

Regional Operating Centers for the Academic Fleet. -– The major oceanographic institutions,

UNOLS, and some of the Federal agencies have

been discussing the feasibility of establishing

some form of a regional operating system for the

academic fleet. 11 Some groups claim that future

tight budgets will force closer cooperative operating arrangements, at least for the larger, more

expensive ships, and that a well-planned system

could offer benefits for both the researcher and

the Government. There is much controversy over

this subject, and no consensus has been reached.

The present practice of assigning oceanographic ship operating responsibilities to institutions, based on the merits of their scientific programs and their operating or management capabilities merits a review in light of several changes

11 u~iv~~~it ~. Nat iOnal oceanographic Laboratory System. “ Report of the Working Group on Joint Ship Scheduling, ” May 1980.
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies . 61

in the nature of oceanographic cruises. For one, a

significant amount of oceanographic ship time is

spent on multi-institutional projects that are

planned jointly by many participating scientists

and are often integrated into international programs of long duration and large scope. Because

research often takes the form of large-scale,

planned data-collection efforts, scientific productivity and skills at ship management do not

necessarily go together. The scientists from an

institution and its ships and crews do not now

form as close and as isolated a group as in the

past.

Some groups have proposed operation of regional coastal oceanographic ships to serve many

users on many short cruises in coastal research.

For at least one of the possible future coastal

ships, regional operation was proposed so that

the ship could be operated by an institution

which also operated several other major ships. It

was also planned to have alternate ports for the

ship so that the ship could be operated by the

operator institution, yet could return to port easily for minor overhaul. Thus, it would be managed from, but would not necessarily operate

from, the dock of the operator institution. In this

way both flexibility and cost effectiveness could

be attained by standardizing maintenance, spare

parts, and some equipment.

It is clear that there can be different kinds of

regional operations. One kind may be simply a

home base for a number of ship facilities.

Another kind may be a geographic operations

area with one or more bases for ship facilities.

Finally, regional operators may be a group of

users whose laboratories have geographic proximity, but whose research interests are more

cosmopolitan.

Alternative Management Systems for

the Agency Fleets

Navy and NOAA have major survey fleets that

respond to a continuing long-term need for

routine data collection. In fact, several major

multipurpose oceanographic ships are in both

Navy and NOAA fleets. Other agencies seem to

have an uncertain commitment to future research and survey fleets.

Consolidating some Federal agency fleets that

appear to have almost identical capabilities and

uses and coordinating with different fleets that

can from time to time efficient y match capabilities and needs may be cost-effective. Some

consolidation has been suggested among NOAA,

USGS, and EPA. Both USGS and EPA have a

small number of ships with uses very similar to

part of the NOAA fleet. In practice, however, it

is quite difficult to maintain research program

quality and flexibility in one agency when control

of principal technology, such as ships, is in

another agency. Most agencies with ships claim

that their needs are sufficiently unique to require

that their ships be under their own agency or program control.

Coordination among all agencies that operate

oceanographic ships is taking place in the Federal

Oceanographic Fleet Coordinating Council. Future trends in coordination may include planning

for oceanographic capabilities for new vessels and

considering whether these vessels can meet the

program needs of other agencies prior to building. Also, there is a need to coordinate continually the requirements and capabilities of the academic fleet with those of the operating agencies,

some of which is already being done. The possibility of more agencies chartering academic ships

has been proposed to eliminate possible duplication of capability. Avoiding duplication may also

involve sharing appropriate technological developments and many routine data-collection efforts

among agencies like Navy, Coast Guard, and

NOAA.

While coordination cannot cure all inefficiencies, it offers the possibility for improvements. A

disadvantage of such a system is that it would

complicate specific tasks and thus decrease

flexibility. Since complexity might be inefficient

for small programs and small ship operations, a

simple analysis of specific costs and benefits

would be useful prior to any major changes in the

present system.

Ships-of-Opportunity

Two types of ships-of-opportunity programs

are now in effect. One program involves the

World Meteorological Organization (WMO),
62 . Technology and Oceanography

that transmits ships’ officers’ observations of

weather and sea conditions by radio to participating countries. 12 The U.S. Navy’s Fleet

Numerical Oceanography Center (FNOC) at

Monterrey, Calif., processes such data for the

United States and provides it for distribution to

civilian users through NOAA.

The other ships-of-opportunity program involves specific merchant ships that traverse

remote sealanes where oceanographic data are

sparse and are needed. It is a cooperative

NOAA/Navy program and at present is used to

collect temperature/depth data exclusively. The

cost of collecting such data is relatively low

because the participating ships provide the manpower and the ships without cost. Navy furnishes

the ships with expendable bathythermograph

probes (XBTs), shipboard launchers, and recorders. Both NOAA and Navy provide liaison

services to the participating ships.

The principal uses of data thus collected are

for weather forecasting, ship operations and

routing, commercial fishing, and some largescale research projects. In the future, such datacollection systems could be expanded for climate

and pollution studies. The ships-of-opportunity

observations are especially useful if combined

with measurements from buoys, satellites, and

other stations.

The present NOAA/Navy ships-of-opportunity program operates through Navy’s FNOC.

Approximately 125 ships of both U.S. and

foreign registry participate directly or through

specific research programs, NOAA and Navy

have signed a memorandum of agreement (November-December 1979) to enable future expansion of the program.

While the watch officers’ meteorological report

to WMO’s net requires little technological support other than the radio net itself, the NOAA/

Navy program requires considerable technological support. The shipboard instrumentation are

furnished to the ship, and the ship’s crew receive

the data, “read” it, identify critical characteristics, and code the information into a standard

I ZIntergovernmenta] Oceanographic World Meteorological Orga -

nization, IGOSS The Integrated Global Ocean Station System,

1979.

format. The data are then sent by radio message

to FNOC; the actual traces are sent by mail.

NOAA and Navy liaison with the participating

ships is of great importance to the successful

operation of this program by providing instrumentation, instructions for their use, and discussions about operational details and problems.

There are several improvements being planned

for the ships-of-opportunity program. Representatives from FNOC state that improved shipboard

systems could enhance the program’s data recovery rate and provide more accurate information.

The research community, which has had datahandling problems with the traces from the

XBTs, is testing a new system that provides a

shipboard trace and a magnetic digital recording

of the trace. NOAA is in the process of developing a shipboard automated station to receive,

store, and transmit meteorological and oceanographic data, Moreover, NOAA’s Public Weather Service is developing the Shipboard Environmental Data Acquisition System (SEAS), that will

use communication satellites for relaying data to

shore. The following sensors have been suggested

for SEAS:

1.

2.

3.

4.

a module for routine meteorological observations,

an expendable ocean temperature and current-velocity profiler,

an expendable ocean temperature and conductivity profiler, and

a doppler speed log-current profiler.

The cost of each SEAS unit will depend on

what sensors are included, but the minimum cost

will probably be around $15,000. If meteorological, ocean sea-surface temperature, XBT trace

information, and ocean-current information are

included, the cost may well run close to

$l00,000/unit. An analysis of optimum configurations to meet varying needs has not been

conducted.

Commercial ships may furnish substantial

observational data of importance to oceanography, meteorology, and climatology, provided instruments can be devised that operate with a

minimum of attendance and provided the information generated can be effectively transmitted

to data centers and thence to users. Satellite com-
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies ● 63

munication has made transmission possible; integrated circuit technology may make suitable instruments possible. Simple and precise navigation systems can assure correct navigational

labeling of data. It may be possible, though controversial, to require all ships that receive the

U.S. weather services to carry transponders to active satellite interrogation systems.

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

need and feasibility could be undertaken. Such a

study should involve fishermen and cargo ship

operators as well as scientists and technologists.

NOAA plans for an initiative with the SEAS

program is a first step for an expanded ships-ofopportunity program. However, some cost and

benefit analysis of different approaches to instrument and data networks, as well as research program needs, would be desirable before a major

commitment is made for program expansion.
64 ● Technology and Oceanography

SUBMERSIBLES

Both manned and unmanned submersibles are

uniquely capable of certain tasks in observing

and conducting research activities below the

ocean surface. Unmanned submersibles, or

ROVs, are a burgeoning technology that gives

the marine scientist an underwater view of the

ocean via closed-circuit television (CCTV). They

are used primarily by the industrial sector, and in

the past several years have overtaken manned

submersibles in number and use.

Manned Submersibles

There are numerous operational manned submersibles in the world, many of which are in use

in the offshore oil industry. For this study, emphasis is directed to active U.S. vessels performing oceanographic research under Federal Government support. For comparative purposes,

submersibles of the private sector (national and

international ) and of foreign governments are

discussed.

U.S. Government Sector

The Navy. –Five submersibles are owned by

the U.S. Navy (table 17), but one of these, the

Alvin, is managed by UNOLS and is operated by

the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

This deep-submergence research vehicle (with its

tender ship Lulu) is designated a national facility

1 JUni\,er~it ~,. Nat ion a] Oceanography ic Laboratory System, ~P”

p,,rtun[t~cs fi)r ocwnographlc” Rescorch, Alzvn, descriptive pam -

phlet, 1978.

and is available to researchers through application to UNOLS for vessel time.

The Trieste II, technically a bathyscaphe submersible with the greatest operating depth, has

been used for geological investigations of the

ocean bottom at 20,000 ft below the surface. Two

submersibles similar to the Alvin –the Sea Cliff

and the Turtle — are used by Navy for locating

and recovering small objects from the ocean bottom, as well as for performing geological research. The NR-1, a nuclear powered research

submarine, has been used for geological research

and classified projects for Navy. Most aspects of

NR-1 specifications and characteristics are classified.

Acquisition and operating costs for Navy submersibles Turtle, Sea Cliff, Trieste-II, and NR-1

are shown in table 18. These data, supplied by

Table 18.—Costs for Navy Submersibles

Tries/e // (DSV-1 )

Acquisition cost (1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8,500,000

Operation and maintenance (fiscal year 1981). 1,460,000

Turf/e (DSV-3)

Acquisition cost (1963) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,500,000

Operation and maintenance (fiscal year 1981). 1,960,000

Sea Clitf (DSV-4)

Acquisition cost (1963) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,500,000

Operation and maintenance (fiscal year 1981). 1,906,000

NR-1

Acquisition cost (1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67,000,000

Operation and maintenance (fiscal year 1981). 3,760,000

NOTE Submersible acqulsltlon costs are In then-year dollars Operation and

maintenance costs are In fiscal year 1981 constant budget dollars

SOURCE U S Navy

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

Operating Power Crew/ Manipulators/ Speed (kts) Endurance (hrs)

Vessel Date built Length (ft) depth (ft) supply observers viewports cruise/max. cruise/maximum

UNIOLS

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

Navy

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

Turtle . . . . . 1968 26 10,000 Battery 2/1 2/5 5/25 8/2

Trieste II. . 1969 78 20,000 Battery 2/1 1/3 1 .5/11.9

NR-1 . . . . . .

—

1969 136 — Nuclear 71 — — —

a~y 1982

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies ● 65

Photo credff U .S Navy

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

Photo credit U S Navy

Trieste II

Photo credit U S Navy

Sea Cliff
66 ● Technology and Oceanography

Navy, do not include costs for special support

equipment, field change modifications, major

maintenance and overhaul, support ships and

staff, and special facilities.

Alvin is the most capable submersible available

to civilian oceanographers, and as such it is in

great demand. In the summer of 1978, the Alvin

was used to explore waters near the Azores on

geophysical and geological research. Subsequently, it was used to make a few dives at Woods Hole

on fisheries research. After a few days of upkeep,

the Alvin assisted in setting up a biological station at 12,000 ft below the ocean’s surface near

Puerto Rico; and at the start of 1979, the Alvin

went to the Galapagos Islands to study biological

conditions around the hot thermal vents previously discovered at a depth of about 9,000 ft. In

1975 Alvin was not fully utilized but by 1978 and

through 1980, total at-sea days ranged from 197

to 228 per year and the total number of dives

went from 81 to 117 per year. These numbers

plus the necessary port preparation time represent essentially full utilization.

UNOLS management of Alvin is through an

Alvin review committee, consisting of 10 members, that convenes annually to review accomplishments, discuss problems, review proposals,

and recommend scheduling of the Alvin time.

In 1977 UNOLS issued a report that summarized

the following uses of Alvin in geological and

biological studies:14

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

investigating seafloor strata;

studying sedimentary processes in the benthic boundary layer;

surveying the ocean bottom to help evolve

the theory of plate tectonics;

conducting geochemical experiments on the

ocean floor;

measuring geodetic characteristics (crustal

uplift in an area of seafloor spreading);

utilizing new instrumentation for studies at

very great depths;

making single-site periodic surveys of deepsea biology;

finding new deep-sea species;

tuniver~ity. Nat ional Oceanography ic Laboratory System, RePfJrt

OJ the UNOLS A lzv”n Re~~ew Com m~ttee to the UNOLS A dmsory

Council of The Continued Role of DSR V Alzin, March 1979.

. .

. sampling deep-sea bacteria; and

. setting U p deep-sea bottom biological experiments.

The UNOLS report recommended that at least

a 3-year coordinating, planning, and funding

support effort be established for the Alvin t o

assure most effective use and that actual yearly

funding be apportioned among sponsoring agencies. Recently, in 1979, UNOLS scheduled the

Alvin to spend alternate years operating out of

the U.S. east and west coasts, with 1980 as a west

coast year.

In 1977, a memorandum of understanding

among Navy, NOAA, and NSF recognized the

importance of the Alvin and concluded that:

●

●

●

The supporting agencies will provide operating support funds through December 31,

1980.

Major programs requiring the use of the

Alvin should be identified 2 years in advance.

A full schedule should be 180 days (rather

than the previous schedule of 150) .-

Alvin was built in 1964 at a cost of just under

$1 million and its hull converted to titanium in

1973 for an additional $1 million. Its replacement cost is probably $4 million to $5 million.

The yearly operating cost for Alvin and its support ship was $1.9 million in fiscal year 1980,

based on 200 operational days per year. While

the Alvin is considered in good condition for continued operations, its support ship Lulu has for

some time needed upgrading or replacement.

Various alternatives for an Alvin support ship

have been proposed.

In the fall of 1979 a UNOLS-sponsored study,

Research Submersible Facility Requirements for

Short- and Long-Term Needs Within the U.S.

Scientific and Technical Community, commenced. The study was designed by the Alvin Review Committee of UNOLS and is jointly funded

by the. U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval Research,

NOAA (Research and Development Special Projects Office), and NSF (Office of Oceanographic

Facilities and Support). The objectives of the

study are to develop a comprehensive facilities

plan which identifies and satisfies UNOLS

submersible science requirements from the pres-
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies ● 67

Photo credlf Woods Ho/e Oceanographic Institution

DSRV—Alvin

ent through the year 1990. The plan will consider

Lulu/Alvin modifications, leasing of submersibles systems, capital expenditures for reactivation of existing facilities, construction of new or

additional systems, and plans for maintenance

and operations.

NOAA. –For several years NOAA has been

involved in planning manned undersea facilities.

In 1979, an analysis prepared by NOAA’s ocean

engineering office concluded that there was a

need for a high-performance, long-range submersible with diver-support capabilities. Plans

for this submersible, known as Oceanlab, were

begun. Because of high cost estimates (over $25

million) for Oceanlab and disagreements over the

scientific needs, the project was shelved and the

NAS Ocean Sciences Board was requested to

restudy requirements and to consider alternative

approaches. That study considered a variety of

surface and subsurface vehicles to satisfy a range

of requirements for research tasks requiring

underwater observation and manipulation.

As a result of the study and of decisions by

NOAA, Oceanlab funds were reprogrammed to a

new undersea research program. The program

plans prepared in 1980 included the support of

Hydrolab, the only U.S. undersea manned habitat in operation. This facility is located at

Fairleigh Dickinson University’s West Indies

Laboratory at St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. The

laboratory sits in 49 ft of water at the head of Salt

River Submarine Canyon, off the northern coast
68 ● Technology and Oceanography

of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. The science

program focuses on marine problems common to

many U.S. continental coast regions.

Other segments of the new undersea program

are regional facility projects which have been

proposed by the University of Southern California, the University of North Carolina, and the

University of Hawaii. Diving and other facilities

are planned to be located at these institutions

under NOAA sponsorship.

NOAA also pursues an active leasing program

whereby shallow-diving submersibles are chartered to conduct surveys and research. One of

these, the manned submersible Makalii (formerly

known as Star 11) is owned by the University of

Hawaii and operated by it for NOAA’s Regional

Undersea Research Program. Makalii is a twoman (one pilot and one observer), one-atmosphere vehicle capable of diving to a maximum

depth of 1,200 ft. In addition to direct in situ

observation, it is capable of implanting instruments, retrieving samples, and conducting

experiments using its manipulation and its externally mounted tools:

Participants in these diving programs, generally from 1- to 2-months duration, are from Government and academia. To date the major applications have been for baseline environmental

measurements, monitoring and assessment of

areas planned for ocean dumping; undersea mining; oil and gas production activities; development of. offshore powerplants and deep-water

structures; fisheries research and management;

and sediment transport studies assessing the fate

of pollutants and bottom nutrients. The total annual NOAA funds expended for manned submersibles leasing are listed below. These funds do

not include NOAA’s annual contribution to the

support of Alvin in the past 5 years.

Money spent on

Fiscal yea r submersibles leasing

1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 234,875

1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210,600

1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493,800*

1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199,800

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

— ——.

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

U.S. Private Sector

Currently operating manned submersibles of

the private sector that have over 600 ft of

operating depth capability are listed in table 19.

Of the vehicles listed, four are operated by nonprofit organizations or academic institutions solely for research (Diaphus, Johnson-Sea-Link I &

II, Makalii).

The Johnson-Sea-Link vehicles lockout divers

at depths to 1,000 ft, operate without Federal

support, and annually compile diving times in

excess of 120 days. The remaining two vehicles,

Makalii and Diaphus, although supported by

their operators, conduct much of their diving

with funds derived from projects with Federal

Government support. The remainder of the submersibles listed are operated by private, profitmaking organizations which are primarily involved in offshore oil- and gas-support work.

Three groups of vehicles–Arms, Jim, a n d

Wasp – are tethered submersibles which are

designed to provide manipulation for relatively

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

The Jim, a tethered manned submersible
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies ● 69

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

Operating Power Crew/ Manipulators/

Vehicle Date built Length (ft) depth (ft) supply observers viewports Operator

.

Arms 1, II, and Illa . . . . .

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

Auguste

Piccard . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

Jim (14 each.)a

Johnson-Sea-Link l&llb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1976–

1978

1964

1978

1968

1967

1974

1974

1971

1975

1972

1968

1970

1972

1978

1976

1969

1966

1977

a

Telhered

b Diver lockout

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

8.5

17.0

93.5

24.0

39.9

19.8

—

22.8

17.9

15.0

17.0

20.0

14.5

17.7

—

—

3,000

600

2,000

2,700

8,000

1,200

1,500

3,000

1,000

1,000

1,200

6,600

1,000

1,200

2,000

complex tasks, but are limited to work at

Battery

Battery

Battery

Battery

Battery

Battery

Human

Battery

Battery

Battery

Battery

Battery

Battery

Battery

Surface

1/1

1/1

6/3

1/4

2/2

1/1

1/0

1/3

1/1

1/1

1/2

1/2

1/1

1/1

1/10

3/Bow dome

0/6

0/1

l/Bow dome

212

l/Bow dome

2/1

l/Panoramic

l/Bow dome

l/Bow dome

2/3

2/3

1/10

1/6

2/Bow dome

Oceaneering International,

Santa Barbara, Calif. .

New England Ocean Services,

Boston, Mass.

Gulf Maritime Explorations,

Solona Beach, Cal if.

International Underwater

Contractors, City Island, N.Y.

Lockheed Missiles & Space

Co., San Diego, Cal if.

Texas A&M University, College

Station, Tex.

Oceaneering International,

Houston, Tex.

Harbor Branch Foundation, Ft.

Pierce, Fla.

International Underwater

Contractors, City Island, N.Y.

Nekton, Inc., San Diego, Cal if.

Martech International,

Houston, Tex.

International Underwater

Contractors, City Island, N.Y.

Undersea Graphics, Inc.,

Torrance, Cal if.

University of Hawaii, Honolulu,

Hawaii

Oceaneering International,

Houston, Tex.

a

specific site. The Arms vehicles are, essentially,

one-atmosphere observation/work bells, connected by cable to the surface, designed to be

highly maneuverable within a limited area, and

capable of high-dexterity manipulation. The Jim

and Wasp vehicles, on the other hand, are oneatmosphere diving suits which are lowered on a

stage or are free-swimming (i. e., Wasp) and are

controlled by the operator inside.

Industrial vehicles perform a variety of tasks:

pipeline and structure inspection, bottom surveying/mapping, search and retrieval of lost and

abandoned objects, exploratory drilling support,

geological and biological sampling, coral harvesting, and maintenance repair. Additionally,

these vehicles can and sometimes do perform

scientific research tasks under contract to Federal

Government agencies.

At present there are two submersibles under

construction in the private sector in the United

States. Since the commercial market is so dynamic and technological innovations are so frequent, all manned industrial vehicles are generally built under contract and not for the speculative market.

Foreign Sector

A listing of manned submersibles operated by

various foreign governments is presented in table

20.

The manned submersible operators in the foreign private sector, particularly the British and

French, are far more active than their U.S.

counterparts. This activity is centered around

North Sea and Mediterranean oil and gas support. Whereas most U.S. private sector vehicles
70 . Technology and Oceanography

Table 20.—Foreign Government-Supported Submersibles

Operating

Country Date built depth (ft) Crew/observors Operator

Canada

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

1970

6,600

2,000

1/2

1/4

Department of the

Environment, Victoria, B.C.

Canadian Armed Forces,

Halifax, N.S.

CNEXO, Toulon

French Navy, Toulon

French Navy, Toulon

CNEXO, Toulon

Italian Navy.

JAMSTEC, Yokosuka.

NA

NA

NA

Royal Swedish Navy

VNIROb

Institute of Oceanology,

Moscow

VNIRO

Institute of Oceanology,

Moscow

Institute of Oceanology,

Moscow

VNIRO

VNIRO

NA

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

France

Cyana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Griffon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LaLicornea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SM-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1970

1973

1980

Under construction

9,843

1,969

656

1,968

1/2

2/1

1/4

1/2

Italy

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

Japan

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

Peoples Republic of China

SM-358a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SM-360a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1979

1980

984

984

1/3

1/3

Rumania

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

Sweden

URFa

U.S.S.R.

Atlant (3 ea.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Argus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1978 1,509 5/25

1975

1975

660

8,968

1/1

2/1

Benthos 300. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Osmot Ra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1976

1980

990

990

2/4

212

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

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

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

Yugoslavia

Mermaid Va. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1976

1975

6,605

1,321

1/2

1/1

1979 984 2/2

aD iver lockout

bAlt l.)nlon Research Institute of Marine Flsherles and Oceanography.

NA.information not available

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

employ very basic instrumentation, such as, visual observations, CCTV, and still photography,

the European operators use a variety of sophisticated electronics and support systems in addition

to optical- and direct-viewing techniques.

There are approximately 56 non-U. S. operating submersibles in the private sector. Table 21

shows the national distribution, type, and depth

range of these capabilities. The surface support

ships of European operating companies are

equipped with highly sophisticated data acquisition and processing systems which permit online

processing and presentation of the data within

hours after it has been obtained and, in some instances, in real time.

Comparison of Submersible

Capabilities

United States—Federal v. Private Sector

Since the Federal submersible fleet is designed

to conduct military and scientific missions, and

most of the private fleet is aimed at conducting

industrial work tasks, a comparison of their

capabilities has limited usefulness, An analysis of

the diversity of vehicle capabilities in the Federal

.

v. private fleet and the reasons for this diversity

can help to explain this situation.

Depth Capability. –Federal submersible s

have a far greater diving capability than those of
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies ● 71

Table 21 .—Foreign Private-Sector Submersibles

Maximum depth One

Country range (ft) atmosphere Lockout ADS Obs/work bell

Brazil. . . . . . . . . . . 984 — 1 — —

Canada . . . . . . . . . 1,500 2 1 — —

France. . . . . . . . . . 6,600 10 6 — 3

Italy. . . . . . . . . . . . 3,000 2 1 — 2

Japan. . . . . . . . . . . 984 2 — — —

Netherlands . . . . . 843 1 — — —

Norway . . . . . . . . . 1,000 — — — 1

Switzerland. . . . . . 1,640 1 — — —

United Kingdom. . 3,281 12 5 4 —

West Germany . . . 984 — 2 — —

Totals . . . . . . 30 16 4 6

—

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

the private sector because of the needs of military

missions. At present there is no industrial market

for vehicles with depth capabilities of 10,000 to

20,000 ft; although there are identified needs for

scientific research to be conducted at those

depths. Conducting dives with, e.g., the Alvin in

500 ft or so of water is not a cost-effective utilization of its capabilities. For this reason, the

NOAA lease program uses shallow-diving industrial submersibles to satisfy its shallow-water requirements.

Lockout Capability. – Lockout is the capability of a submersible to let personnel exit or enter

the vehicle while it is submerged. This capability

complicates the design of the submersible because of the need to transport and support divers,

and it provides increased ballasting and deballasting of the vehicle to hold it at a constant

depth.

There are no Federal vehicles, except the Deep

Submergence Rescue Vehicles (Mystic and

Avalon) capable of lockout. (These vehicles can

only lockout in a dry-transfer mode, not in the

normal dry-to-wet mode. ) The Navy would normally rely on more conventional diving techniques (saturation bell) if a diver were required.

Industrial lockout vehicles are necessary since a

diver (who may be a welder, mechanic, or other

technician) can be delivered to some worksite

more efficiently than he could be with a conventional diving bell.

Specialized Vehicles. –The specialized nature

of industrial vehicles (one-atmosphere submersibles, ADS, observation bells, lockout submersibles) reflects the wide variety of the work tasks

and the constant competition within industry.

For example, ADS (a one-atmosphere underwater suit) is meant to compete with the use of a

scuba diver since it provides near-human manipulative capabilities and does not require lengthy

decompression schedules. The observation bells

compete with one-atmosphere submersibles by

providing unlimited power (through an umbilical), greater maneuvering capability, and greater

manipulative capability for working within a

limited (300-ft radius) area around structures.

Expense. – On a vehicle-by-vehicle basis the

Federal fleet is more expensive to maintain,

simply because there is more to maintain. There

is more complexity in a 10,000- or 20,000-ft vehicle than in a 600- or 1,000-ft vehicle. It follows

that normal maintenance is more extensive, and

equipment components are more expensive.

Also, lack of competition in the Federal fleet and

unique uses of vehicles may contribute to higher

costs.

U.S. Federal Government v.

Foreign Federal Government

If U.S. Navy submersibles are considered scientific assets, then the U.S. Federal submersible

fleet is fully comparable to that of any other nation. If Alvin alone is considered (the only

Federal submersible solely dedicated to science),

then the U.S. Federal fleet may soon fall behind

those of other nations, particularly France and

the Soviet Union. The following discussion relates
72 . Technology and Oceanography

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

vehicles.

At present France has a vehicle, Cyana, which

is essentially the depth-equal of the Alvin as well

as its equal in most other major categories. When

the French vehicle SM-97 is launched (projected

for 1983 at this time), France’s fleet will be ahead

of that of the United States in depth capability

and in numbers of vehicles (if Cyana remains

active).

The Soviet Union now has 11 known vehicles

under the aegis of its Institute of Oceanology and

the All Union Research Institute of Marine

Fisheries and Oceanography. A lockout submersible and a 660-ft depth-capable habitat are now

under construction. In addition, the Soviet

Union is currently attempting to have a 20,000-ft

vehicle built in Canada; but, at this time, the

Canadian firm is experiencing difficulty in obtaining necessary export licenses. At this moment, the Soviet fleet exceeds the U.S. fleet in

numbers of vehicles.

It should be pointed out that the only advantage France and the U.S.S.R. will have is a

depth advantage. How much this is worth from a

scientific viewpoint is speculative. In the sophistication of its scientific equipment, the United

States probably leads other countries and appears

likely to maintain this advantage in the future. In

fact, the major scientific equipment on the Soviet

Pisces vehicles were made in the United States.

Future Plans. –There are, at present, no

plans in the Federal Government to build new

submersibles, although the UNOLS study group

is considering whether this should be done. The

UNOLS group is also considering alternate approaches, such as deep ROVs.

Remotely Operated Vehicles

ROVs, or unmanned submersibles, have been

in existence for the past 27 years; but their

utilization in ocean projects as practical, economic, work stations has only recently been accepted. Since 1976 their numbers have increased;

and while there is a wide variety of ROVs, they

can be grouped in four categories:

●

●

●

●

Tethered, free-swimming vehicles. – Powered and controlled through a surface-connected cable; self-propelled; capable of 3-

dimensional maneuvering, remote viewing

through CCTV.

Towed vehicles. – Powered and controlled

through a surface-connected cable; propelled by surface ship; capable of maneuvering only forward and up/down by cable

winch; remote viewing through CCTV.

Untethered vehicles. –Self-powered; controlled by acoustic commands or preprogrammed course; self-propelled; capable of

maneuvering in three dimensions; no remote

viewing capability.

Bottom-crawling vehicles. – Powered and

controlled through a surface-connected cable; maneuvered by friction-drive against

the bottom or a structure; remote viewing

through CCTV.

Industry is the major user of ROVs, and here

again the primary employment is in the offshore

oil and gas industry. Table 22 presents the major

tasks performed by the different types of vehicles

for their various customers. The advantages of

ROVs over manned vehicles are their unlimited

power (which, except for untethered vehicles, is

delivered from the surface station via an umbilical cable), their relatively low cost, and the

fact that they do not jeopardize human life. Major disadvantages are that the cable frequently

entangles or breaks, and the high-hydrodynamic

drag on the cable at depths greater than 3,000 ft

makes the ROV cumbersome to maneuver.

U.S. Government Sector

The distribution of federally operated ROVs is

listed in table 16. As shown, the primary–and

almost exclusive — user of tethered, free-swimming ROVs in the U.S. Government is Navy.

Although Navy uses these ROVs occasionally for

very specific scientific research, they are used

primarily for salvage and weapon recovery.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Woods

Hole Oceanographic Institution, and LamontDoherty Geological Observatory are academic institutions operating the federally funded deeptowed vehicles, Deep Tow, Angus, and Katz Fish.
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies ● 73

Table 22.—ROV Applications

Industrial

.— —

MiIitary Scientific/research

Tethered, free-swimming vehicles

— ———— — —..—

Inspection Inspection Inspection

Monitoring Search/identification Survey

Survey Installation/retrieval Installation/retrieval

Diver assistance

Search/identification

Installation/retrieval

Cleaning

Towed vehicles

Survey Geological/geophysical investigations

Broad area reconnaissance

Water analysis

Biological/geological sampling

Bioassay

Manganese nodule survey

Search/identification/location

Survey

Fine-g rained mapping

Water sampling

Radiation measurements

Untethered vehicles

Iceberg measurements Conductivity/temperature/pressureprofiling

Wake turbulence measurements

Under-ice acoustic profiling

Bathymetry

Photography

Arctic ice

Underside roughness

None Implanting ocean-floor instruments

Bottom-crawling vehicles

Pipe trenching

Cable burial

Bulldozing

Dredging

Survey/inspect ion

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

Table 23.—U.S. Government-Supported ROVs

—— ——

Type Depth (ft) Operator

Photo cred(t U S Navy

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

Two of these vehicles, Deep Tow and Angus, are

capable of operating to depths of 20,000 ft (table

23). The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena,

Calif., is developing (with Federal funds) the

towed vehicle Digitow to serve as a testbed for

oceanographic equipment as it is developed.

The untethered vehicles listed in table 23 that

are not Navy-supported are being developed by

Tethered tree-swimming

Snoopy (2 ea.). . 1,500

Deep Drone. . . . 2,000

CURV II (2 ea.). 2,500

URS-1. . . . . . . . . 3,000

CURV Ill. . . . . . . 10,000

RUWS . . . . . . . . 20,000

Towed

RUFAS II . . . . . . 2,400

Digitow . . . . . . . 20,000

Teleprobe . . . . . 20,000

Deep Tow . . . . . 20,000

Angus . . . . . . . . 20,000

Katz Fish. . . . . . 2,500

Untethered

Eave East . . . . . 150

Eave West. . . . . 200

SPURV 1. . . . . . . 12,000

SPURV II . . . . . . 5,000

UFSS . . . . . . . . . 1,500

U.S. Navy

U.S. Navy

U.S. Navy

U.S. Navy

U.S. Navy

U.S. Navya

NOAA (National Marine

Fisheries Service)

Jet Propulsion Laboratory

U.S. Navy

ScrippsC

Woods HoleC

LamontC

University of New Hampshired

U.S. Navyd

University of Washington

University of Washington

U.S. Navy

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

not firm at this time

bFunded by National Aeronautics and Space Admlmstratlon and National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Admlnlstratton

cconstructlon funded by the U S Navy

d Fu n de d by the U s Geological Survey, Department of the Interior

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

80-710 0 - 81 - 6
74 ● Technology and Oceanography

USGS to demonstrate the feasibility of underwater-structure (fixed platforms and pipelines)

inspection in the oil and gas industry. The results

of this program could find application in the

scientific research community.

Four towed vehicles, financed in part or entirely by the Federal Government, are used for

scientific research: Rufas II, Digitow, Deep Tow,

and Katz Fish. They are employed in fisheries research and geophysical research and surveys.

NOAA’s Office of Ocean Engineering conducted a comprehensive study of ROVs worldwid e

15 and prepared a program development

plan for ROV instrumentation and support systems. NOAA also conducted a short-term evaluation of a leased, tethered, free-swimming vehicle

to assess its potential use for scientific research. 16

It appears that no decision has been made on

whether NOAA will pursue development of this

technology.

U.S. Private Sector

The six U.S. manufacturers of tethered, freeswimming ROVs have produced 57 vehicles over

the past 5 years. Of the vehicles produced, 14

have been sold to foreign customers and 43 to

U.S. companies. Private vehicles in this category

are shallower diving (6,600 ft is the maximum

operating depth) than those of the Government,

but are in every other way capable of performing

similar tasks. Until now, virtually all of these

vehicles were used in support of offshore oil and

gas, but in the summer of 1980, a commercially

operated vehicle was used for the first time in a

scientific endeavor to study reef fish in the Gulf of

Mexico for the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM). There are no deep-towed vehicles known

to be operated by the U.S. commercial sector;

although one U.S. company does manufacture

such devices for foreign customers.

1~-R~ F~~~k Busby Associates, Inc. , Remotely Operated Vehicles,

prepared for U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean Engineering, August

1979.

16U,s, Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Manned Undersea Science and Technology,

Remotely Operated Vehicle Scientific App[icatton Assessment, December 1979.

Foreign Government Sector

There are at least eight foreign governments

involved in either the utilization or development of ROVs. All vehicle development in the

U. S. S. R., can be classified as governmental. The

United Kingdom, on the other hand, has an industry/government program under the Offshore

Supplies Office whereby the government funds

some portion of the developmental costs, and industry the remainder. If the resulting technology

is profitable, then the government’s funds are

returned and the vehicle belongs to industry, The

United Kingdom is now supporting an ambitious

ROV development program for wide application

in the North Sea oil and gas industry.

The Soviet Union’s current activities with

ROVs is minimal at present. Until 2 years ago,

the U.S.S.R.’S Institute of Oceanology developed

two ROVs for scientific research; one of these is

now operating. Research and development is currently underway to develop for scientific investigation an untethered preprogrammed vehicle

with pattern-recognition capabilities as well as

towed vehicles for deep-water reconnaissance.

Foreign Private Sector

Except in one instance, tethered, free-swimming ROVs of private sector operators and manufacturers are aimed at the offshore oil and gas

service support market. By and large, the vehicles

employed and manufactured are much like those

of the United States in capabilities. To date, 375

of these ROVs have been manufactured in

Canada, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands,

Norway, Sweden, West Germany, and the United

Kingdom. The leading manufacturers are in

Canada (35 vehicles) and France (164 vehicles).

Unlike those in other countries, all but three of

the French vehicles are defense-oriented. The

Societie Eca of Meudon has produced over 160

ROV’s called Pap-104, which are used by various

North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Naval

Forces to identify and neutralize explosive ordnance on the sea floor. There are, in addition,

five deep-towed 20,000-ft vehicles in the foreign

private sector. Three are found in Germany and

two in Japan.
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies 75

BUOY, MOORED, AND OCEAN-FLOOR SYSTEMS

Many varieties of buoys, moored systems, and

ocean-floor systems are in use in oceanographic

research and monitoring.

Buoys include surface and subsurface floats

that may be either moored or drifting. They

usually contain instrument packages with sensors, power supplies, data recording gear, and

some means of communication or data transmission to shore. Large buoys may be moored by

ship and stay in one place collecting data for

many months; smaller units may be dropped

from aircraft to make measurements for a few

days. Buoys may be launched by ships or aircraft

to drift with ocean currents or winds and to

transmit data as long as they can be tracked.

Moored systems usually consist of one or more

sensors and other instruments that are fixed in

the ocean using cables or lines, anchors, and

subsea flotation. They may be used in very deep

water, making measurements anywhere from just

below the sea surface to the ocean floor. Oceanfloor systems are assemblies of instruments which

are contained on a structure that is fixed or anchored to the bottom. Both of these systems,

when used in the deep ocean, require a remote

power supply, reliable data transmission to the

surface, and effective installation procedures.

These systems are usually launched from ships,

but some smaller units can be airdropped.

Instrumented, buoy, and other systems are

being used worldwide to monitor meteorological and oceanographic conditions and, in some

cases, to transmit the data to shore via satellite communication links. Academic institutions

such as Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and the

University of Miami have developed sophisticated

designs and deployment techniques for buoys to

collect data for a variety of oceanographic purposes. Buoy systems supported by NOAA and a

few other agencies have been developed mainly

for specific program data-collection purposes –

e.g., the data buoy program for meeting weather

service needs of measurements over the ocean.

Buoys

Moored Buoys

The NOAA Data Buoy Office (NDBO) owns

and operates the large U.S. buoys that collect

synoptic ocean and meteorological data. Each of

the 19 moored buoys now operating around the

U.S. coastline, has one of four different hull configurations:

●

●

●

●

✍✎

A 10-m discus-shaped hull displacing about

60 tons, about half of which is hull weight.

This buoy carries a 2- to 5-ton payload of

batteries and instruments; the remainder is

ballast.

A 12-m discus-shaped hull that displaces

about 100 tons, and carries about 2- to 5-

tons of payload.

A 5-m discus-shaped hull, displacing about

6.5 tons and carrying 2 tons of payload.

A 6-m boat-shaped hull (called NOMAD),

displacing 8 tons, about one-fourth of which

is payload.

Photo credit General Dynamics

NOAA moored data buoy
76 . Technology and Oceanography

Five different sensor/communication packages

are used on buoys to collect data that is principally meteorological but includes wave and seasurface temperature measurements. For the 10-

and 12-m buoys, goals are for 1 -year unattended

operation, yearly maintenance, and overhaul

every 3 years. The smaller buoys have the same

operation and maintenance goals but require

yearly overhaul. Because many of the buoys have

some data collection and transmitting problems,

the program is not yet fully operational.

A 1978 report by the Director of NDBO outlined the uses and maintenance of data buoys. It

noted that NDBO serviced four moored buoys

about once every 36 days from 1972 to 197517 and

visited 15 buoys once every 150 days in 1977. Several buoys were lost in severe weather due to toppling, sinking, and other reasons. In assessing

data collection, the report revealed that from

1972 to 1975, 220 synoptic weather messages

were transmitted per buoy per year. In 1977 these

messages increased to 2,550. Over and above this

level, in 1977 the buoys transmitted 22,000 wave

spectra and 8,000 bathythermograph reports.

Data quality was reported to have improved;

errors in measuring air temperature and windspeed were reduced by large factors; and errors in

barometric pressure and wind direction were cut

in half. Presently, bathythermograph data are

not collected because of technical difficulties.

The National Data Buoy program has not succeeded in attracting much interest from oceanographers — again, in part, because of the strong

meteorological /weather service orientation,

rather than an oceanographic orientation. For

example, the data from the present oceanographic data buoys are not timely nor routinely

available from the National Weather Service or

the National Oceanographic Data Center.

Use of moored buoys as meteorological and

climatological benchmark stations at the former

weathership stations and at other representative

places in the oceans has been advocated by scientists. Continued surface observations at the

former weathership sites would provide valuable

‘7J. C. McCall, NDBO M~sston and Payloads, prc=parcd for U.S.

Department of Commerce, NOAA Data Buoy Office, paper

presented at Marine Electronics Communications Panel of U.S. ~

Japan Cooperative Program in National Resources, Tokyo, 1978.

extensions in the lengths of the various surface

climatic records. They would also improve numerical atmospheric circulation models; although the absence of upper air data would

rather limit their usefulness at present. Moreover, midocean buoys, if maintained over an indefinite period, could provide needed time-series

data at fixed locations in the oceans.

However, at a capital cost of about $400,000

each, in addition to expenses for annual maintenance, space-satellite data transmission, and

data recording, the funds needed for this purpose

are considerable.

A problem facing researchers who need global,

synoptic ocean measurements is whether very

large numbers of open-ocean buoy systems could

be deployed at a reasonable cost. Such research

programs involving climate monitoring or largescale atmospheric and oceanic modeling could

use hundreds or thousands of moored buoys.

Whether the costs of a global, open-ocean, multibuoy system can be justified on climatological or

oceanographic grounds alone will require much

consideration. It would be difficult to justify the

cost of a worldwide array of tethered buoys

designed to supply data just for atmospheric

modeling. A buoy system for the initialization of

global oceanic circulation models would be expensive because of the necessarily large number

of buoy stations required.

The economic case is more favorable for deployment of moored buoys that are more capable

than the existing data buoys on the Continental

Shelf and in coastal regions. This approach

would entail minimum maintenance costs and

would multiply the data use. Data from nearcoastal buoys could be used to improve shortterm coastal weather forecasts; to help predict

storm surges; and to provide wave forecasts for

coastal shipping operations, drilling operations,

marine construction, and fisheries, The buoys

could monitor the boundary currents and coastal

upwelling that are prevalent in these regions. On

the other hand, the existence of such near-coastal

buoy stations is only of limited use for global atmospheric or oceanic modeling.
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies ● 77

Drifting Buoys

Drifting buoys are used extensively for measuring subsurface currents. As surface floats, many

have been used during the First GARP Global

Experiment (FGGE) in which a total of 368 such

buoys were launched, 307 in the Southern Hemisphere. Sixty-four of these buoys belonged to the

United States. Other U.S. programs which involved the use of drifting buoys are large ocean

circulation, air-sea interaction, and ice dynamic

studies.

In some ways, drifting buoys are a refinement

of the ancient drift bottles. The use of very high

frequency, of satellite communication, and of

underwater acoustic signals have allowed the

drifters to transmit not only a series of signals by

which to locate them, but also information about

other physical variables. Surface atmospheric

pressure and near sea-surface temperature measurements were transmitted in FGGE; and temperature and depth measurements were transmitted in the Mid-Ocean Dynamics Experiment.

The instantaneous surface-pressure data from

these buoys in remote southern ocean regions

were appreciated by the weather services of

Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa for

direct operational purposes. The data about surface currents remain somewhat controversial,

however, because of near-surface current shears,

imperfect buoy-drogue (underwater parachute)

action, and wind pressure on the part of the buoy

above the water. The modeling and improvePhoto credit Peter Wiebe, Woods Ho/e Oceanographic Institution

This drifting buoy will follow water movement of eddies in the Gulf Stream. It will be tracked by satellite with position and

temperature reports available twice daily for up to 1 year. Such buoys are considered expendable but may be recovered and

repowered for another experiment
78 ● Technology and Oceanography

ment of the drogue system is a matter of active

study by NDBO.18 

Because drifting buoys can be launched from

aircraft they are especially valuable in remote

areas not normally traversed by ships. They have

also been installed successfully on ice to measure

meteorological data and ice movement. 19

A series of about 30 drifting buoys has been

airdropped into the South Pacific to measure

barometric pressure and sea-surface temperature

as part of the Global Weather Experiment. The

data from these Tires Meteorological Drifting

Buoys are being transmitted via satellite to

NOAA for distribution and archiving. These

buoys are about 10-ft long, with a maximum

diameter of 27 inches and a total weight of 294

lb. The performance of the buoys is reportedly

excellent and the data are unique for this

geographical region. Although the powerpacks of

most of the U.S. drifting buoys were designed

only for 1 year of operation, preliminary performance statistics indicate that only about 50

percent of the meteorological drifting buoys actually survived for 12 months.

An NDBO air-launched drifting buoy with

barometer, temperature sensor, battery pack,

and drogue, costs at present about $7,500, not

including the costs of deployment or satellite

communication. This price could decrease somewhat with mass production. Cost considerations

and limited usage have prevented large numbers

of drifting buoys from becoming regular components of a routine, global ocean-monitoring system. Although they have been cost effective for

limited operational purposes for countries like

Australia, which is affected by weather systems

developing in infrequented ocean areas, they are

not so cost effective for the United States, which is

less subject to such conditions. Drifting buoys will

probably continue to play a role in scientific

research, particularly in process-oriented experiments. They can also be expected to remain

useful for tracing ice movement for research,

“J. H. Nath, “Drifting Buoy Tether- Drogue System,”’ Dr?~fers,

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Data Buoy Office, NDBO

F.230-2, March 1979.

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

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

prediction and warning to ships, and drilling

platforms.

Moored Systems

Subsurface Moorings

Deployed by the Woods Hole Oceanographic

Institution, Oregon State University, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, NOAA Pacifi c

Marine Environmental Laboratory, University of

Miami, Navy, and others, subsurface moorings

are used by physical oceanographers for longterm (1 to 1 1/2 years) measurements of current,

temperature, salinity, and optical transmission in

the study of mesoscale and intermediate scale

fluid-flow in both deep and intermediate shelfwater environments. Acousticians use the moorings to place hydrophores, data recording capsules, and sound sources at specified depths for

extended periods. The moorings are also used by

geologists to deploy sediment traps.

The moorings consist of a bottom anchor, one

or two acoustic releases —such that the moorings

can be freed from the anchor for recovery lines —

and a wire rope connecting the releases to current

meters, sediment traps, acoustic sources, and

floats that maintain a taut mooring and provide

the lift that brings the array of instruments to the

ocean surface after the system is commanded to

release the mooring from its anchor. The moorings do not appear at ocean surface level for two

reasons:

●

●

to minimize the influence of surface-wave

action, currents, and windstress on the

moorings’ motion;

to eliminate the risk of theft of the mooring

assembly.

The Woods Hole Oceanographic Buoy Group,

which has had considerable experience with the

launch and retrieval of moorings, finds that large

oceanographic vessels of the Knorr-, Melville-, or

At/antis II-types are necessary when deploying

more than one deep mooring on a cruise. The

vessels used must have sufficient deck space to

store large quantities of equipment such as anchors, flotation spheres, lines, and current

meters. The vessel must have large capstans, Aframes, and cranes. The stern should be low to
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies . 79

Figure 6.— Intermediate Mooring

Photo credif Woods Ho/e Oceanography /nstItufIon

Mooring buoy being launched

the water, and the vessel must have adequate

maneuverability to maintain position and be able

to support acoustic communications systems.

Mooring Configurations

The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

and other institutions have developed reliable

mooring techniques, and all use basic design

principles similar to the following descriptions. 20 

Moorings used at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution incorporate three general design configurations. The intermediate mooring,

shown in figure 6, is a subsurface mooring with

buoyancy sections at several depths. The lowest

buoyancy section provides backup recovery in the

event of mooring failure. The depth of the top of

the mooring can vary up to within 200m of the

surface or less.

The deep-sea surface mooring, shown in figure

7, uses a variety of floats. The weight of its anchor varies with the expected current profile. On

‘“James D. Baker, “Ocean Instruments and Experiment Design, ”

a chapter for Rezveuls of the Ma rrne Enl~zronment, Department of

oceanography,” ~’nz~ferszty of Washtngtonp Carl Wunsch and Bruce

Warren (eds. ) (Cambridge, Mass.: MI-I- Press, August 1979).

H . - Sea surface

TYP. 500m” Sadie, light, 8

L

Radio float

1/2 chain

~ Wire (typ. 20m)

t - -

Instrument

Wire

Wire—————+

Wire

7

Intermediate

buoyancy

wire 2om ~

(typ. 6 spheres)

f )-

Instrument

Wire

7

Backup recovery

buoyancy

SOURCE: Woods Hole Oceanographic Instltutlon

surface moorings, the backup-recovery section is

a single cluster of glass spheres in hardhats on

chain near the bottom, instead of in nets on

nylon line as used in earlier practice. This section

eliminates the need to test spheres because the

mooring will not be endangered if a sphere implodes on chain.

Bottom moorings, shown in figure 8, are used

to make near-bottom measurements and for

transponder (a sensor/transmitter) placement.

They are usually 200m or less in length, have no
80 ● Technology and Oceanography

Phofo credit Woods Hole Oceanographic /nst/tuf/on

Buoy group preparing mooring flotation

backup recovery section, and typically carry only

one or two instruments.

Mooring failures occur during launch, during

recovery, and on-station. Numerous on-station

failures occurred when surface moorings, lines,

and fittings failed from fish attack or from corrosion or fatigue. Surface floats have been swept

under and crushed in high currents. In many

cases, surface moorings were less reliable than the

subsurface moorings because of fatigue caused by

waves.

Acoustic release became a key item as soon as it

was confirmed that the subsurface moorings were

significantly more reliable. The timed releases

and weak links used earlier were adequate as long

as mooring durations were short; but with longer

and longer mooring durations being dictated by

program needs to look at lower frequency variations in currents and pressure fields, the timers

became unworkable.

Many other buoy systems exist. Some are totally submerged and anchored to the bottom; some

are released at the end of a given period; and

some are released on command. The sensors and

Figure 7.— Deep-Sea Surface Mooring

Light, radio, & float ‘

Chafe chain (typ. 10m)

Wire ~

Nylon -- +

Instrument

Chafe chain 5m Acoustic release

~Anchor tag line—nylon—

typ. 20m

SOURCE: Woods Hole Oceanographic Instltutlon

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

Special custom-made buoys have occasionally

been developed and deployed. A buoy used in

research on ocean thermal energy conversions

(OTEC) has been built by NDBO. This vehicle

tested candidate tubing for possible use in OTEC

z I u s Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmos,

. .

pheric Administration, Office of R & D, Office of Ocean Engineering, Data Buoy Office, Final Report o} the NDBO .%z,ere Enxv’ron -

ment and Buoy workshop, July 1979.
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies ● 81

Figure 8.— Bottom Mooring

Sea surface

Alternate buoyancy

package

t

current meters, temperature-gradient sensors,

coring devices, shear-strength measuring devices,

pore-pressure sensors, nephelometers, biological

tools such as traps, and photographic and television cameras and recorders. The deployment of

these instruments can be accomplished by a

number of techniques: lowering from ships, freefall from ships, and placement by submersibles

Radio Light such as the Alvin, or by bottom-crawling vehiFiberglass cles. Deployment often incorporates buoyancy

— frame with elements, some sort of detachable weight for ani

.

Chain -B- 8 spheres

or syntactic

foam float

I Anchor tag–nylon (typ. 20m.)

I -chafe chain 3 m

SOURCE Woods Hole Oceanographic Instltutlon

heat exchangers to measure heat transfer coefficients, biofouling, and corrosion. Water quality

indicator systems, installed on OTEC and other

buoys, have been used in bays and estuaries to

measure chlorophyll, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH, water temperature, and water clarity.

Ocean-Floor Systems

There are numerous instruments and devices

that oceanographers deploy in and on the ocean

floor. Examples of these instruments include:

ocean-bottom seismometers, sediment traps,

choring, and acoustically activated release mechanisms. This combination permits recovery by

surface ships on command.

An example of a new ocean floor instrument

system is the work undertaken by the HEBBLE

(High Energy Benthic Boundary Layer Experiment) program in which an underwater platform

is planned for long-term stationary operation.

The purpose of HEBBLE would be to support a

number of instruments which would measure

deep, ocean-bottom processes such as currents,

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

Seafloor sampling device being lowered over the side of

R/V Oceanus for studies of transport and degradation

of aromatic hydrocarbons
82 ● Technology and Oceanography

sediment transport, and biologic patterns, and

then record the data for retrieval. The program

will study the dynamics of the benthic boundary

layer and its interaction with the seabed. Information gained from HEBBLE experiments

will be used in feasibility studies of nuclear waste

disposal in the subseabed, toxic waste disposal in

the ocean, and deep continental margin drilling .

2 2

This program in basic oceanography is supported by Navy and NASA. The NASA Jet Propulsion Lab is designing conceptual hardware

systems for the project. Near-term efforts are expected to produce a HEBBLE platform design

for deployment to depths of 4,000 to 6,000m.

—

~~NatiOna] Aeronautics and Space Administration, Jet propulsion

Laboratory, High Energy Bc=mthic Boundary Layer Experiment,

Prelimtrmy Program Plan and Conceptual Design, JPL publication

No. 80-2.1980.

The platform, or seabed lander, will consist of an

array of about 12 instruments with associated

electronics and onboard microprocessors for data

acquisition and storage. A prototype is estimated

to cost approximately $2.5 million per lander. 23 

Other Vehicles

Various other vehicles have been considered

for oceanographic research, ranging from fixed

“Texas-Tower” types to large, moored barges.

One in particular, has proved exceedingly useful

in certain studies: the manned, Floating Instrument Platform (Flip) operated by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

.—

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

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

Photo credit: Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Flip, 355-ft floating instrument platform
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies 83

Flip is a 355-ft long cylindrical platform which

is towed horizontally and then ballasted to a vertical, operating position. Flip was built in 1962,

primarily to provide a stable platform from

which to do underwater acoustic research. In

1964, special tasks in physical oceanography were

begun using Flip. The first project was a study of

the properties of long waves in the Pacific Ocean.

Both basic oceanographic research and applications to military oceanography have been important aspects of projects conducted by this platform.

In its early years, Flip drifted with the currents, but in 1968-69 a three-point mooring system was installed. This installation permitted

fixing Flip’s position to within 100m in a fairly

deep ocean in moderate currents.

In 1979 and 1980 Flip operated for about 50

days. Two areas studied were:

. sound propagation using a vertical array o f

hydrophores suspended below Flip; and

● internal waves, using narrow-beam sonar

and temperature sensors.

Occasionally a self-propelled version of Flip is

suggested. Also, consideration has been given to

a proposed barge-like Flip with a large deck area.

This construction would permit carrying of heavy

deck loads and even perhaps a small submersible.

Navy also operates a large, unmanned, Flip-type

buoy known as Spar. This platform has been extensively used for acoustic research.

\

Photo credjt U S Navy

Spar
84 ● Technology and Oceanography

EQUIPMENT AND INSTRUMENTATION

Oceanographic research and survey platforms

carry different types and combinations of equipment and instrumentation, depending on the

purpose and design of the overall mission, Equipment installed aboard most research and survey

ships is briefly discussed below followed by a

general review of oceanographic instruments that

are used in a variety of settings. Remote sensing

from satellites is covered in a subsequent section

.

operations. The equipment used depends on the

type of ship and its mission. For example,

winches, cranes, A-frames, capstans, and open

decks near the water are usually necessary for

servicing buoys, lowering dredging or coring gear

to the sea floor, taking samples, towing nets or

other sensors, and installing any number of special measurement systems. Special handling gear

is necessary for very heavy instrument systems, for

on satellites.

Shipboard

submersibles, for large moorings, or for ROVs.

Equipment Some ships are built to accommodate specific

handling gear, while others are built with enough

equipment and services include flexibility to add or modify such gear as operawinch-es, deck handling gear, laboratories, and tional needs change. Special winches and-even

the specific hardware to accommodate scientific laboratories, such as those in a van, are often

Photo credit National Oceanic and Atrnospher/c Administration

Federal research programs require the use of ships and instrumentation technology. Here a seawater sampler is lowered to

the ocean floor from a research ship participating in the NOAA-sponsored Deep Ocean Mining Environmental Study
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies ● 85

portable and designed for specific experiments.

Since many ships are usually in service over 25

years, they must be able to handle the significant

changes in technology for ocean-data collection

that are likely to occur during the life of one ship.

The present practice in the academic fleet is to

use operating funds for equipment, with the result that much equipment is not upgraded nor

standardized adequately. Many research ships

have a lot of ad hoc equipment with the attendant difficulties in getting spare parts. It will be

important in the future to maintain and upgrade

shipboard equipment and to highlight problems

of inadequate or obsolete equipment within responsible agencies.

Instrumentation

The heart of any ocean research project is its

instrumentation. The need to develop instrumentation systems for general oceanographic measurements is driven by the need to observe certain

phenomena.

Instruments take many forms and are used for

all specific measurements. Measurements of general physical properties and processes have always

been important to oceanographic research. Such

measurements include ocean temperatures, salinity, density, and depths; dynamic properties produced by waves, currents, and tides; meteorological conditions at the sea surface such as winds,

humidity and pressure; chemical properties of

the sea and its constituents, biological processes

in the ocean; and descriptions of bottom and subbottom geology. Measurements of ocean transport processes, such as the north-south transport

of heat, are especially crucial to climatology. To

understand heat transport in the ocean, better

techniques are needed for measuring large flows

of both surface and deep-ocean water.

Biological sampling techniques are extremely

important for understanding behavior and productivity of ocean fishstocks. Most existing

sampling systems are rudimentary and slow in

collecting data. Substantial improvements in

biological instrumentation would be useful to

major Federal efforts in fisheries and pollution

monitoring. 24

The variety of oceanographic instruments and

instrument needs is huge. Most present-day programs require an extensive array of sensors to collect data on physical, chemical, biological, and

other properties simultaneously and over large

regions. Many measurements must also be made

over long periods of time so that the slow-moving

dynamics of the ocean can be adequately recorded.

In 1974, NOAA inventoried U.S. stock of sensors and samplers of ocean parameters. It found

that there were about 21,000 ocean instruments

of 34 generic types. *5 It also found that the

technological focus of most oceanographic research, survey, and monitoring programs lay in

the instrumentation available. Survey and monitoring programs generally use state-of-the-art instrumentation available commercially. Research

programs use a mix of commercial and often oneof-a-kind experimental units.

While it is often convenient to separate programs into physical, biological, geophysical, and

other disciplines, many instruments are common

to all disciplines. Furthermore, the large field

programs, such as climate, are interdisciplinary

and require a variety of instruments. Procurement, checkout, and calibration of off-the-shelf

instruments requires significant leadtimes to be

incorporated into programs. Often experimental

systems, having been proven of value, require additional development before they are sufficiently

reliable and applicable to the larger field experiments, surveys, and monitoring efforts.

Technology development of new instrumentation is funded by Navy (ONR), NSF, NASA, and

NOAA; however, there is no well-funded overall

instrumentation development program, that is

———— —————

2~o~’R sporlwr~d Workshop on “Advanced Concepts in Ocean

Measurements, Problems in Marine Biological Measurements, ” conducted by the University of South Carolina, Oct. 24-28, 1978.

Z$~J, s. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ocean Instrumentation, a report for the Interagency Committee on Marine Science and Engineering, November 1974,
86 ● Technology and Oceanography

separate from scientific programs. It is estimated

that 10 percent of the funding of oceanographic

research programs of Navy and NSF are directed

toward instrument procurement and development. The commercial oceanographic instrument market is so small that it is difficult to attract sector investment in the development of

proprietary, new instrument concepts. Therefore, wide dissemination of academically developed technology is necessary to avoid nonproductive expenditures. Interagency information exchange on instrumentation development is badly

needed as are realistic budget allocations.

Instruments and Related Hardware

The four general aspects of instrumentation

systems are the:

1. package and related equipment to support

the instrument from a ship, on a mooring,

or on its own;

2. sensors;

3. power supply; and

4. subsystem for data recording, storage, and

transmission.

The following discussions include descriptions of

typical and important oceanographic instruments. The instruments chosen are only illustrative examples of a subject that is too large for

comprehensive coverage in this report.26,27 

Current Meters. – Current meters measure the

velocity and direction of ocean currents and are

used widely throughout the ocean depths. Many

fixed meters have the same basic elements as

those in use for the past 20 years — a rotor to sense

the speed of the water and a vane to sense the

direction. They are usually fixed to moorings or

buoys and contain their own data recorders. The

modern versions have improved recorders to

average the frequent direction changes and improved sensors utilizing acoustics, electropotential, and magnetic techniques to measure flow

and direction.

‘sBaker, op. cit.

~JU s Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmos- . .

pheric Administration, Office of Ocean Engineering, Marine /instrumentation: An Assessment of Technology Versus Needs, technical report, May 1978.

Neutrally Buoyant Floats. –Neutrally buoyant floats are special versions of current meters

which are launched into the ocean to drift with

the currents and are then tracked by a surface

ship. Measurement of currents by the use of floats

requires sophisticated methods of tracking the

floats. The great strides made in acoustics during

World War 11 yielded such adaptable technology.

Early versions of floats were developed just

after the war and were known as “Swallow Floats”

after their inventor, John Swallow. Tracing of

them was difficult, however, until long-range

floats were developed to use the SOFAR (Sound

Fixing and Ranging) channel. The SOFAR channel is found in the many parts of the ocean and is

caused by the combination of pressure and temperature effects on the speed of sound. In the

SOFAR channel a few watts of sound can be

heard thousands of kilometers away.

Drifting surface buoys are an additional type

of current indicating instrument that have been

found to be of considerable importance. (The

predecessor to drifting buoys was the drifting

corked bottle. ) Drifting surface floats with subsurface drogues (parachutes) are controlled in

postion by the subsurface currents that pull at the

drogue. Position data, meteorological data, and
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies . 87

ocean surface temperature are transmitted from

these drifters via satellites.

An interesting extension of the idea of the neutrally buoyant float is the self-propelled and

guided float. One such instrument, built at the

University of Washington, is called SPUR V (selfpropelled underwater research vehicle). SPUR V

can maneuver underwater with acoustic signals

to produce horizontal and vertical profiles of

temperature, salinity, and other parameters. In

fact, it is really an ROV, that illustrates the

difficulty in putting oceanographic technology in

neat categories.

Temperature Profilers. – The free-fall bathythermograph (BT) has advanced dramatically in

design. The old BT with its pressure-driven

bellows and temperature gauge that recorded

temperature as a function of depth has been

replaced by the electronic XBT. A radio link is

now included so that the unit can be dropped

from a data-recording aircraft. These expendable units provide data from the upper layers of

the ocean. The XBT uses a thermistor to sense

the temperature and depends on a known fallrate to determine the depth.

XBTs are an invaluable tool for monitoring

the upper layer thermal structure of the ocean.

Merchant ships equipped with XBTs have

yielded extensive sets of data for the study of the

variability of the thermal structure of the upper

ocean in both the North Pacific and the North

Atlantic. By 1978, the Sippican Corp., suppliers

of the XBT, produced more than 2 million

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

Merchant marine cadet receiving instruction in the

operation of an automated instrument to measure seawater

temperature and depth. Climate research will require

consistent, accurate measurements over long time

periods such as can be provided by a network of

“ships-of-opportunity” with trained officers aboard

probes. The scientific community alone uses approximately” 65,000 XBTs annually. Navy uses

many more. To obtain deeper and more accurate

measurements than are available with the XBT,

ship-lowered systems, such as the salinity-temperature depth instrument or the conductivitytemperature-depth instrument are used.

Velocity Profiles. – The measurement of current as a function of depth is critical to the

understanding of ocean circulation. The technology has advanced but not sufficiently to provide

the quantitative and wide-area data needed in

many oceanographic studies. Techniques used

include three classes: the sinking float, the freefall device, and the attached profiler. The sinking float, is tracked acoustically by ocean-flow

transmissions as it sinks, and its path is differentiated to yield velocity as a function of depth.

The free-fall device includes a current sensor.

The attached profiler instrument that has a current meter that goes up and down a line attached

to a ship, mooring, or drifting buoy. Since these

three types provide data only at a single point
88 . Technology and Oceanography

and for a restricted time, they cannot provide the

data required for many large-scale experiments

and survey programs. Newer techniques using

acoustic doppler and correlation (acoustic tomography) are being investigated to overcome

these limitations.

Almost every oceanographic discipline has

needs for improved instrumentation. In fisheries,

limitations exist in the ability to identify species

by acoustics, to conduct population surveys, and

to net mid-water fish species. Technology for

deepwater sampling at moderate ship speeds for

chemical oceanography or nutrient-analysis purposes is not available. In seismic work, significant

advances have been made by the petroleum industry; however, advanced instrumentation has

not been available to academic and Government

laboratories.

Associated Technologies. –There are many

technologies associated with data acquisition that

have considerable impact on sensor systems but

are not classified as instrumentation, per se.

These approaches include navigation and instrument position technology, data recording

and transmission, instrument power supplies,

and electronic technologies.

Data Recording and Data Transmission. –Sea

Data Corp. has produced over 1,000 recorders

since 1972. The present Sea Data (1978) model

uses less than 4 watthours of battery power to

record 11 million bits of data. The tape transport

can write data as fast as 1,200 bits per second or

as slow as one record per half hour. At this rate,

with a maximum 396-bit data record, a cassette

would take more than a year to fill. This data

capacity is roughly equivalent to 500 ft of 4-inchstrip chart paper. Other commercial cassette

tape recorders are also available for oceanographic use.

In many applications it is necessary to obtain

oceanographic data in real time. Data transmission by satellite relay has replaced many radio

frequency transmissions and has made communications possible from many small remote buoys.

Navigation, Position Data, and Communications. — Most oceanographic studies and surveys

require position data. Advances in shore-based

navigation, such as Loran and Omega, are comPhoto credit Scripps /nst/tut/on o! Oceanography

In the laboratory aboard a research vessel, a student

studies recorded measurements from a temperature probe

of heat flow through the ocean floor

plemented by satellite navigation systems. Within

the next 5 years, further improvement of position

data will be provided by the Global Positioning

System (GPS).

Batteries. – Power consumption of data recorders is now lower because of improvements in

battery capacity over the past few years. The new

lithium-cell batteries provide a number of characteristics important for oceanographic use.

They have the highest cell voltage, the longest

shelf life, the greatest energy density, the best

low-temperature performance, and a flatter voltage-discharge curve than any other battery except mercury cells. The last characteristic is especially important for use in logic circuits where the

system is usually set to run at a given regulated

voltage.

These batteries and the new high-capacity tape

recorder allow measurements of various oceanographic parameters in excess of a year and do a

certain amount of data processing in situ. One

major data collection problem has been solved by

the introduction of reliable tape recording systems now on the market.

Electronics Technology. – One of the most important steps in instrument design was the introduction of the new lower-power, integratedcircuit, solid-state electronics, known generally as

COSMOS (complementary-symmetry metal ox-
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies 89

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

Shipboard computer group at Scripps Institution of Oceanography has five computers —three 1800’s and two satellite

navigation systems. Operating 24 hours a day, both at-sea aboard research vessels and on land at the La Jolla campus,

they collect and process data from oceanographic instrumentation

ide semiconductor). Solid state devices permit a

number of data processing operations in situ that

never could have been considered before. For example, the vector-averaging current meter computes north and east components of the velocity,

and records the speed, compass and vane follower directions, time, temperature, and the components over a variable sampling time which can

be set to fit the experiment. The total recording

time can be longer than 600 days. The use of the

COSMOS integrated circuit technology is crucial

to this flexibility.

A future outgrowth of the above technology

may be oceanographic instruments using integrated electronic circuit components on silicon

“chips” if enough measurements for many stations are identified. The original chip will be expensive to design, but economical to replicate.

For example, once a satisfactory digital output

instrument has been developed, the next step

would be to do the same thing that manufacturers of commercial electronic games do —

namely, to make up a large-scale integrated

(LSI) circuit chip. To make a chip may cost

$250,000; replicas may cost about $5 each.

The major factor preventing the development

of instrumentation chips is economics. The

oceanographic market is insufficient to justify

developing a chip in the hope of making a profit.

Public funding, however, may be justified. The
90 . Technology and Oceanography

investment could return benefits, such as better

and more complete data; fewer lost costs because

of instrument malfunctions; and ease of replacement since ships can carry spare chips. The other

advantages of LSI circuit chips would be durability, continuity of instrument design, less temperature sensitivity, insensitivity to accelerations,

and much smaller circuits, with the attendant

advantages in small size.

Many “control”- type chips are becoming available for other nonoceanographic use, such as

that in appliances, automobiles, and special instrument control. Many of these special and general -purpose chips may be useful to oceanographic instrumentmakers.

Oceanographic equipment and instrumentation requirements are very dynamic due to the

changing character of programs and available

technologies. Each discipline and each program

may have unique requirements; most have many

technology requirements in common. The sharing of development costs to advance both technology and programs may offer new instrumentation and program alternatives. The significant

problem in each program is that of gaining the

technology and the required equipment and instrumentation on a time- and cost-effective basis.
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies . 91

SATELLITES

The many satellites that have carried sensors

and yielded data useful to ocean, coastal, and

polar science, and to oceanic environmental

monitoring are listed in table 24. The concerted

development of oceanic remote sensors for these

satellites received a major impetus from a

meeting of oceanic data users at Williams College, Williamstown, Mass., in 1969. At that

meeting, goals and objectives for satellite observation, measurement, and interpretation of

ocean phenomena were formulated (table 25).

These measurement needs reflected the fact that

the everchanging nature of the ocean requires

continuous viewing at all times in the day, despite

the cloud cover which can be prevalent in many

important regions. Furthermore, the needs

served as an important benchmark from which to

judge the oceanic programs that followed this

meeting and they had a direct effect on the formulation of measurement objectives for the proposed NOSS. Recent representative sensor techThe measurement of the ocean by satellite

technology began with both the experimental

satellites (such as the Nimbus series) that tested

new satellite instrumentation and the global

weather satellites (Tires and Improved Tires)

that were able to provide day and night global

ocean coverage. 28

Although several early satellite missions provided oceanic data, these data were usually outside of the mainstream purpose of the missions.

Missions with a strictly oceanic objective began

with a Skylab experimental mission, were followed by the GEOS-3 altimetric experiment, and

culminated in 1978 by the Seasat experiment.

Other missions dedicated to diverse or different

interests have also provided valuable oceanic

data .

2 9

‘8John R. Apel, “Ocean Science From Space, ” EOS,Journa/ ojthe

American Geophysical Unzon, September 1976.

‘9A. Schnapf, Euolutzon of the Operational Satellite Servz’ce,

]958-1984 (Princeton, N.J.: RCA Corp., 1979).

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

Launch

Satellite date Orbit Character Sensors Oceanic Parameters

Polar Experimental IR and MW radiometers and Temperature, ice cover,

radiation budget, wind, color

Nimbus 4..1970

bolometer; color scanner

Nimbus 5..1973

Nimbus 6..1975

Nimbus-G. .1978

ITOS 1-4...1966-75

ESSA 1-9. . .

NOAA 1-4. .

ATS 1-3....1966-67

Polar

Synchronous

Synchronous

Variable

Polar

Operational Visible vidicon; IR scanner Imagery, temperature

Prototype Visible, IR scanners;

data channel

Imagery, temperature,

data relay

SMS/GOES

1-5........1974-78 Operational

Experimental

Prototype

Visible, IR scanners;

data channel

Laser reflectors; altimeter

Imagery, temperature

data relay

GEOS 1-3..1965-75

Geoid, ocean geoid

ERTS 1 .. ..1972 Visible, near-l R scanner; Imagery, temperature

thermal IR scanner

Landsat 2..1974

Landsat 3..1978

Skylab. .. ..1973 Experimental Cameras; visible, IR scanner;

spectro radiometer;

MW radiometers; altimeter;

scatterometer

Visible, IR scanners

Imagery, temperature wave

height, wind speed geoid

—

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

SOURCE: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
92 . Technology and Oceanography

Table 25.—Measurement Needs for Oceanographic Satellites

Measurement Range

Geoid 5cm-200m

Topography Currents, IOcm-10m

surges, etc. 5-500cm/s

I Open ocean

Surface winds I Amplitude Closed sea I 3-50m/s

I I 4

I Coastal

Direct ion 0-3600 1

Height 0.5-20m

Gravity waves ILength 6-1 1,000m

Direct ion 0-360°

Open sea

Surface Closed sea – 2-35‘C

temperature I

Coastal I

Precision

accuracy Resolution Spacial grid

+/- 10 cm 10km —

+/-1ocm 10-1000m 10km

+/- 5cm/s

10-50km 50-100km

+/- 1 TO 2m/s 5-25km 25km

OR* 10% l-5km 5km

* 10.20” 0 — —

+/- 0.5m 20km

OR g+/- 10-25%

3 10.250/o 3-50m 50km

* 1 ().3()0

25-100km IOOkm

0.1-2 “relative 5-25km 25km

0.5-2° absolute I

0.1-5km I5km

Extent and age 6 me.— yrs. l-5km l-5km l-5km

Sea ice Leads 50cm 25m 25m 25m

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

SOURCE: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

nologies on aircraft and satellites that provide

oceanic and polar measurements are shown in

table 26.30

Of the several more recent satellites, the most

useful for oceanography are probably NOAA-3

and NOAA -4, ER TS-1, Landsat-2, GEOS-3, the

SMS/GOES series, Tires-N, Seasat, and Nimbus-7. The last three satellites were launched in

1978 and their impact is currently being assessed.

Tiros-N is the first of the new generation of operational meteorological and environmental polarorbiting satellites. Nimbus-7 was designed to

serve experimental ends for both pollution monitoring and oceanography. Seasat-A was the first

satellite designed for oceanographic research but

only lasted 3 months.

The Department of Defense (DOD) satellite

systems, such as the Defense Meteorological

Satellite System are also of value in making

oceanic measurements but are not widely

available outside of military programs.31

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

Satellite System, NOSS, prepared for OTA, ‘Apr. 12, 1980.

3 I ~ artment of the Nav y, Na~al oceanographic and Metewo- P

logica[ Sup#xJrt Syste m Erlzvronmerttal Satellite Plan, Director,

Naval Oceanography and Meteorology, July 1978.

Temporal grid

Weekly to monthly

Twice a day to

weekly

2-8/d

Hourly

—

2-8/d

2-4/d

Daily to weekly

with spectrum of

times of day and

times of year

weekly

2-4/d

—

Photo credit Nat/onal Ocearrlc and Atmospheric Administration

NOAA’s satellite-tracking ground stations receive data from

satellites on global ocean static and weather conditions

To fill the need for a dedicated oceanographic

satellite, the operational satellite community has

proposed development of an NOSS as a “limited

operational demonstration” mission. The project

would be a joint effort of NASA, NOAA, and
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies . 93

Short

form

SR . . . . .

VHRR . .

VISS R

AVHRR .

MSS.

TM . . . . .

Czcs

ESMR

SMMR . .

ALT . . . .

SASS. .

SAR . . . .

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

-— — —

Spatial

Sensor name Wavelength or frequency Spacecraft resolution

Scanning radiometer

Very high resolution radiometer

Visible and infrared spin

scan radiometer

Advanced very high resolution

radiometer

Multispectral scanner

Thematic mapper

Coastal zone color scanner

Electronically scanned microwave

radiometer

Scanning multichannel microwave

radiometer

Short pulse altimeter

Radar wind scatterometer

Synthetic aperture radar

Visible and thermal IR NOAA-1 through 4

Visible and thermal IR NOAA-1 through 4

Visible and thermal IR GOES

Visible and thermal IR Tires-N

Four channels, visible and ERTS/Landsat-l through 3

reflected IR; thermal I R

Four channels, visible and Landsat-D

reflected IR; thermal I R

Six channels, visible, reflected Nimbus-7

and thermal IR

19 GHz

Five channels: 6.6, 10, 18,

21,35 GHz

13.9 GHz, 14.6 GHz

13.4 GHz, 14.6 GHz

1.3 GHz

MSU . . . Microwave sounding unit 4 or 7 channels

50 to 58 GHz

;OURCE Nattonal Aeronautics and Space Admlnistratton -

— —

Navy. An analysis of the NOSS program is in

another section of this report.

Operational Weather Satellites

The National Environmental Satellite Service

(NESS) of NOAA, is responsible for the operation of polar-orbiting and geostationary satellites

that collect weather and other environmental

data. The principal user of this satellite data is

NOAA’s National Weather Service, but the data

are also available to other Government agencies

and to the public.

Polar-Orbiting Satellites

Polar-orbiting satellites are generally in a low

orbit (approximately 500 to 900 miles — 800 to

1,500 km – altitude) and they circle the globe

from pole to pole 12 to 14 times each day, collecting data and imagery in a swath of up to 1,500-

miles (2,500-km) wide. The data are either transmitted to ground receiving stations in real time or

Nimbus-5

Nimbus-7, Seasat

Skylab, GEOS-3, Seasat

Skylab, Seasat

Seasat

Tires or DMSS BLK V-D-2,

respective y

———. —— —-————

7km

1 km

l-7km

1 km

75m, 250m (IR)

30m, IOOm (IR)

825m

15km

15-140km

2km

IOOkm

25m range-7m

azimuth

100km

stored for playback when the satellite is within

range of a ground receiving station .32 33

A third generation of polar-orbiting satellites, the Tires-N series, is now operational. The

series consists of two satellites in orbit: Tiros-N

and NOAA -6. Tiros-N, the NASA prototype

and the first of this series, was launched October

13, 1978. NOAA-6, formerly NOAA-A, w a s

launched in April 1979, as the first operational

satellite of this series. A third satellite, NOAA -7,

is scheduled for orbit in 1981.

The satellites carry four primary instruments:

a Tires operational vertical sounder (TOVS), an

advanced very high-resolution radiometer, a

space environment monitor, and a data collec-

~ZU, s. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Summary of Actions Leading to Establishment of the National Operational Meteorological System (NOMSS)

in Department of Commerce, ” background paper, received from G.

Ludwig, Director of Satellite Operations, NESS, Oct. 24, 1973,

331bid.
94 . Technology and Oceanography

tion and platform location system called ARGOS

(fig. 9).

France is furnishing the ARGOS system and

will also do the platform location analysis in the

operational system. The United Kingdom is providing the stratospheric sounding unit (a component instrument of TOVS). Major improvements

in Tires will be higher accuracy and resolution

of atmospheric temperature and water vapor

soundings, increased radiometric data providing

more accurate seasurface temperature mapping

and plotting of snow and ice cover and the additional ability to monitor solar spectral disturbances. 34

—

34u. s. Department Of Commerce, National Oceanic and AtrnOSpheric Administration, Oceanit and Related Atmospheric Phenomena as Viewed From Enw”ronmenta! Satellites, Washington, D. C.,

April 1979.

Figure 9.—Polar-Orbiting Satellite Subsystem

SOURCE. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies ● 95

Because of the extremely large volume of digital data delivered by these satellites, it was

necessary to install a new ground system which

was completed in June 1978. The system is functionally divided into two subsystems called the

Data Acquisition and Control Subsystem (DACS)

and the Data Processing and Service Subsystem

(DPSS). The DACS equipment is located at Wallops Island, Va., Gilmore Creek, Alaska, San

Francisco, Calif., Suitland, Md., and Lannion,

France. Satellite data acquired at the Wallops

and Gilmore Creek sites are relayed to the NESS

Suitland, Md., facility via a domestic commercial

communications satellite. The DPSS, located in

Suitland, preprocesses and conditions the data

for archiving and storage and directs it to the

NOAA Central Computer Facility. Products are

then developed and distributed to the users. The

data are archived in a mass-storage system and

retained by NOAA’s Environmental Data and Information Service (NOAA/EDIS).

Geostationary Satellites

Geostationary satellites are parked in orbit

about 22,000 miles (36,000 km) above the surface. At this altitude, they remain above the

same point on Earth, thus being geosynchronous

or geostationary. The satellites’ sensors collect a

complete Earth-disk image of about 25 percent of

the globe once every 30 minutes (fig. 10).

NOAA operates the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) system, consisting of predominantly land and marine

Figure 10.–Geostationary Satellite System (GOES)

WEFAX

data

WEFAX Raw Stretched Stretched

data data data data

Space

ground — — — - — - I —

I

WEFAX

stations I

I

I

Everywhere

—— -- -

T

–– –- –

I

IR data

I +

COA

WEFAX

data

I

Wallops Island Suitland, Md.

— .

NOAA data

4

+

NMC charts

(future)

SOURCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admlnlstratlon
96 ● Technology and Oceanography

weather observation units with remote datatransmission links. This system includes three

operating satellites (SMS-2, GOES-2, and

GOES-3), two partially operating satellites in

standby duty (SMS-1 and GOES-I), a recently

launched satellite (GOES-4) that is still being

checked out, the data acquisition system, and a

centralized data distribution system. The first

satellite in this system, NASA’s Synchronous

Meteorological Satellite (SMS-1), a prototype for

GOES, was launched May 17, 1974.

There are now approximately six functional

geostationary satellites in space. Positioned over

the Equator, SMS-2 operates at longitude 750

W., GOES-3 operates at longitude 1350 W. and

GOES-2 operates at longitude 1050 W. to retransmit weather map data to Government and

private users.

The European Space Agency operates its own

geostationary satellite, Meteosat, at 00 longitude, and Japan’s National Space Development

Agency operates a satellite at 1400 longitude.

In addition, the standby satellites, SMS-1 and

GOES-I, are located at longitude 300 W. and

longitude 1290 W. respectively. Other potential

satellites include GOES-4, launched in September 1980 and positioned at longitude 980 W. for

trial, and GOES-5, scheduled for orbit in 1981.

The primary instrument carried by SMS and

GOES satellites is the visible and infrared spinscan radiometer (VISSR). VISSR provides a fulldisk view of the Earth every 30 minutes. More frequent images can be obtained at the sacrifice of

spatial coverage. The visible channel provides

high resolution (about 1 km) daytime images; the

infrared channel provides lower resolution (about

8 km) day and night images.

SMS/GOES satellites also carry a space environment monitor for observing solar radiation

and the Earth’s magnetic field and a data-collection system for collecting and relaying environmental data from remote observing platforms on

the Earth’s surface. Such sensing devices include

river and rain gages, seismometers, tide gages,

and instruments on buoys, ships, aircraft, and

automatic weather stations. Each operational

GOES spacecraft can accommodate data from

more than 10,000 platforms every 6 hours. Data

may also be transmitted under emergency conditions in which the platform transmitter is triggered whenever an observed parameter exceeds a

predetermined threshold value. About 500 platforms have now been certified in the GOES Data

Collection System to provide environmental data

to users in the United States and Canada.

VISSR images are processed through the NESS

Central Data Distribution Facility, either as a

full-disk image or a section thereof, and routed to

Satellite Field Services Stations (SFSS) for analysis

and further routing to National Weather Service

forecast offices and other users (fig. 10). Each

SFSS provides regional analysis, interpretation,

and distribution of the VISSR images to meet a

wide variety of environmental needs. One of these

important services is the near-continuous viewing

of the development and movement of severe

weather systems, such as hurricanes and thunderstorms. 35 

An extension of the GOES image-distribution

service is the “GOES-TAP” system. Instituted by

NESS in 1975, “GOES-TAP” now allows Federal,

State, and local agencies, television stations,

universities, and industry to receive a limited inventory of GOES satellite images directly from

the nearest field service station. In addition,

GOES satellites broadcast weather data to remote

locations using the Weather Facsimile System.

As a result of the international cooperation

and participation within the World Meteorological Organization, a future global geostationary

observation system is being developed. Japan, the

European Space Research Organization (ESRO),

and the U.S.S.R. are each planning to launch

their own geostationary environmental satellites

within this decade. All except the U.S.S.R.

spacecraft will be launched by the United States

aboard a Delta launch vehicle from Cape Kennedy, Fla. Figure 11 shows the approximate

spacecraft locations for the proposed global system. Each spacecraft will be spaced about 700

apart around the world —one over the western

Pacific (Japan), one over the eastern Atlantic

(ESRO), and one over the Indian Ocea n

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

pheric Administration, (;eostat!onary ~@vat!ona! En~vronmenta[

Satelltte/L)ata Co[[ectfon System, NOAA technical report NESS 78,

July 1979.

98 . Technology and Oceanography

Figure 11 .—Proposed Global Geostationary

Satellite System

Geostatlonary equatorial orbit

(alt,–35,600 km)

Western Pacific Indian Ocean

\

. , , >

<, .- - -- -- - - . “ <.

Eastern Pacific .’! European ‘,’ >

Atlantic

SOURCE: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratlon

compared with Seasat-A and Nimbus-7

overflight observations. Localized experiments

would form elements of surface-truth data for

comparison with satellite data. For example,

surface-wind data could be obtained from aircraft and surface platforms for calibration of

Seasat/Nimbus data to be used in support of the

global weather experiment. 36

The Nimbus series was originally conceived as

meteorological satellites to provide atmospheric

data for improved weather forecasting; but as increasingly sophisticated sensors became available, the series grew into a major program studying earth sciences. The U.S. Navy has used Nimbus data for planning operations in the Arctic

and Antarctic. Satellite images showing the location and movement of ice masses enables naval

ships to operate in these areas for an additional

several months.

Nimbus-7

The disciplinary areas of Nimbus-7, the most

recent of the series (and the only one now oper-

——..

S6U, s. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite Service,

“Program Development Plan for Seasa(A Research and Applications, ” March 1977.

ating), are pollution, oceanography, weather,

and climate. Like its six predecessors, it is a Sunsynchronous, polar-orbiting spacecraft carrying

atmospheric sounders, scanning mappers, and

Earth radiation-balance sensors. Oceanographic

parameters include sea-surface temperature, seaice coverage, waveheight, surface winds, and rain

rate. In addition, an imaging instrument called

the coastal zone color scanner (CZCS) provides

six channels of visible and infrared color picture

transmissions. The CZCS is designed to detect

and interpret ocean color, suspended sediment

and chlorophyll concentrations, and ocean pollutants. Nimbus-7 carries a microwave identical

to SMMR (scanning multichannel microwave

radiometer); however, it provides no real-time

data. Nimbus-7 will go out of service in 1981.

Seasat-A

Seasat-A was the first dedicated oceanographic

satellite. Launched in June 1978 by NASA, it

pioneered new microwave and remote sensing for

oceanography. It was originally planned to collect data for about one year but the spacecraft

failed 3 months after launch. The experiment

cost about $100 million. About once every 36

hours, Seasat completely scanned the globe, providing high-resolution geophysical data in continuous real time for ocean-surface winds and

temperature, waveheight, ice conditions, ocean

topography, and coastal and open-ocean storms.

The general characteristics and a summary of

the instrumentation of Seasat are defined in table

27. The Seasat-A sensor complement (fig. 12)

was comprised of three active radars: a radar

altimeter (ALT), a synthetic aperture radar

(SAR), a radar scatterometer system (SCATT),

and a passive SMMR. The geophysical oceanographic measurement capability of Seasat-A a s

shown in table 27 can be compared to user requirements in table 25.

The SeaSat sensors, which were turned on for

operation on the 10th day, operated at maximum

capacity until the end of the mission. The microwave scatterometer (SASS) and SMMR operated

continuously throughout the mission. ALT and

the visual and infrared radiometer (VIRR) experienced specific problems, but still produced
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies . 99

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

Precision

Measurement Sensor Range /accuracy Resolution, km

Geoid 5cm-200m

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

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

ms/

Scatterometer

3-25 +/- 2m/s OR 10%

Direction O-360o

* 200 50

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

OR* I0%

Gravity waves Length Imaging 50-100m +/- 10%

Direction radar 0-360” * 150/0

50m

Relative V & IR -2-35” C 1 .5°

Surface Absolute radiometer Clear weather 2° - 5

temperature Relative Microwave -2-35° C 1°

Absolute radiometer All weather 1 .5° 100

V & IR radiometer - 5km - 5

Extent Microwave radiometer 10-1 5km 10-15

Sea ice +/- 25m 25m

Leads Imaging radar 50m +/- 25m 25m

Icebergs 25m +/- 25m 25m

Shores, clouds V & IR radiometer

Ocean islands - 5km - 5

features Shoals, currents Imaging radar +/- 25m 25m

Atmospheric Water vapor Microwave +/- 25m 50

correct ions & liquid radiometer

SOURCE. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

excellent data sets. VIRR was not operational at

the time the data transmissions stopped.

Seasat completed 1,503 revolutions of the

Earth during its period of operation. SAR completed about 480 passes of 2- to 20-minutes duration each over receiving stations accumulating

over 14,000, 100m X 100m image frames.

Two major surface experiments were conducted during the mission. The first of these was

the multinational Joint Air-Sea Interaction Experiment (JASIN), which was conducted in the

eastern Atlantic near Scotland. Planned and conducted by a group of European and American

scientists, JASIN was an intensive study of the

marine boundary layer and air-sea energy transfer. Some 200 Seasat passes were made over the

JASIN area during the experiment period. A

NASA C-130 aircraft, equipped with a Seasat

underflight scatterometer, also participated,

along with several European and American

research aircraft, 37 38

STU s ~epartment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmos- . .

pheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite Service,

“Satellite Activities of NOAA 1977” April 1978.

3aJet propulsion La boratov, California Institute of TechnoloW.

Seasat Log, vol. Z,Jan. 25, 1979.

Another Seasat ground-truth experiment was

conducted in September 1978 in the Gulf of Alaska. Termed the Gulf of Alaska Seasat Experiment (GOASEX), this activity was planned and

conducted by NOAA and included NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NESS,

the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological

Laboratory, the Wave Propagation Laboratory,

and NDBO. The principal research facility deployed during GOASEX was NOAA’s research

vessel, Oceanographer. The Canadian weather

ships, Quadra and Vancouver, alternating at

Ocean Weather Station PAPA, also obtained

special data on satellite overpassage times.

Selected research vessels of USGS and of the

University of Alaska also made special weather

observations during satellite overpass of their

positions. Participating aircraft included an

Ames Research Center’s CV-990, equipped with

an airborne version of the SMMR; the Johnson

Space Center’s NC-130B with the Seasat underflight scatterometer; the Naval Research Laboratory’s RP-3A, equipped with meteorological and

microwave radiometer instrumentation, and the

Canadian CV-580A aircraft, carrying the Environmental Research Institute of Michigan’s
100 . Technology and Oceanography

Figure 12.—The Seasat-A Spacecraft

SoIar-power

Agena bus

synthetic aperture radar system. This experiment

was also supported by nine NOAA data buoys

moored in the Gulf of Alaska. A comprehensive

data set was collected, corresponding to some 60

satellite overpassages, including more than a

dozen SAR passes. A coordinated study of this

data set is underway as a key element in the early

evaluation activity. 39

NASA states that Seasat-A was a success in its

“proof-of-concept” mission despite its short life

and mechanical failure of the spacecraft. Recent

evaluations by NASA conclude that certain Seasat instruments have been proven to the extent

that they can be used on a next phase or prototype mission. ALT performed better than expected (+/- 7 cm), the SCATT measured winds

within +/- 2 m per second; the CZCS made measurements of chlorophyll within a factor of 2; and

the SMRRs provided sea-surface temperature

data to 1.50 C in selected cases. Although only a

limited number of the planned experiments were

actually carried out, interagency recommendations have proceeded for the development of

NOSS’s limited operational demonstration.

39JeL prol)ul~ion Laboratory, California Institute of ‘1’echnology,

Stwsat Gulf of Alaska WtJrkshf~p Rt>fmr! (Prt>[zmtnary), Pasadena ,

Calif., February 1979.
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies 101

Aircraft are

oceanographic

satellites, they

AIRCRAFT

used only to a limited extent for

research and survey work. Like

permit a synoptic overview of

ocean-surface conditions that cannot be obtained

from shipboard surveys. 40 Typically, long-range

aircraft such as those described in table 28 by

NASA are used for survey work. When equipped

with appropriate remote or airdropped, radiolinked oceanographic and acoustic sensors, they

provide an efficient means of acquiring data over

broad ocean areas on a near real-time basis. The

Federal agencies which use aircraft and helicopters most for oceanographic research and survey

are Coast Guard, NASA, NOAA, and Navy.

One major disadvantage of aircraft is that they

are grounded in adverse weather conditions.

Although some flights are made for surveillance

and medical evacuations in the face of hurricanes, most flights are not conducted during

conditions of low visibility, heavy ice accretion,

or low ceiling.

Federal Agency Operatiom

The U.S. Coast Guard employs the equivalent

of three aircraft specifically for oceanographic

. — 4yJ, s, ~el)artmcnt of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmos.

pheric- Administration, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Services,

[ ‘ser and .%lt’o.~tlr(~rrl(~ritRcqutrenl(’nts }or an Intt~gratcd Ocean Ort -

cntcd Ot~.st’rzvng .~ystenl, July 25, 1979.

Table 28.—Aircraft and Sensors

Aircraft and sensor characteristics

Spatial

Aircraft Altitude, km Spectral resolution Swath

(typical) (typical) Sensor range (at Nadir) m width, km

i - 2 197 OCS VIS, NIR 75 25

Cameras VIS, NIR 10 25

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

TIR 8 8.5

cameras VIS, NIR 0.5 4.5

c-5 4 14 MWR MW 500 500m

(+-1)

(Line)

Helicopter. 003 Alope Vls 50 0. 3m

(Line)

VIS Vlslble O 307 pm (typical)

NIR Near IR O 7 11 pm (typlcdl)

TIR Thermal IR 105 125 pm (Iyp[cal}

MW L and S bands

SOURCE Nallonal Oceamc and Almosphenc Admlrvstrahon

survey, ice patrol, and oilspill response. These

aircraft are not always the same. The rest of the

extensive Coast Guard flight time is devoted to

operations, and the overlap with research is

sometimes difficult to define.

Some Coast Guard aircraft fly about 3 days per

month with a portable sensor — a passive infrared

instrument to measure sea-surface temperature

–between Cape Hatteras and Cape Cod. The

data collected are used by 600 to 700 fishermen

to locate certain species of fish that tend to school

in waters having a fairly narrow temperature

range. The aircraft data are accurate to +/- 0.50

C, compared to the +/- 10 C-accuracy of satellites.

One Coast Guard aircraft is used by the International Ice Patrol to search and track icebergs.

This plane is based in Newfoundland for the ice

patrol season, usually between February and

July. To augment the present visual search

method, new imaging radar is being developed

for the aircraft. Also, buoys are now deployed

from the plane to measure sea currents in an effort to predict with computer modeling the trajectories of icebergs. These buoys communicate

directly with the Tiros-N satellite.

The U.S. Coast Guard also operates an Aircraft Oil Surveillance System (AOSS) using the

C-130 Hercules. Currently scheduled for delivery

is a Falcon twin-engine jet aircraft, known as

Aireye, that will have a side-scanning radar, a

passive IR, a UV line scanner, a passive microwave, and a camera. The main function of the

Aireye system is to detect oilspills in the ocean

and to trace the oil to the ship or tanker causing

the spill. AOSS and Aireye are capable of night

and day operations.

NASA has a program to develop remote-sensing capabilities for use by aircraft (and satellites)

involved in four aspects of physical and biological

oceanographic research: sediment transport,

transport and fate of marine pollution, phytoplankton dynamics, and ocean dumping,

Some ocean-dumping projects may be best

handled by aircraft because some dumping material that must be studied has a short surface-of-
102 • Technology and Oceanography

the-ocean life (4 to 8 hours), and a satellite might

not be in the proper position in time for monitoring .

41

The National Marine Fisheries Servic e

(NMFS) charters several planes from private

companies for a variety of projects. The bulk of

NMFS airtime is devoted to working with the

Coast Guard to enforce the fisheries law. One of

its related ongoing tasks is to count the porpoises

in the area from South Carolina to Central

America. In two major surveys (1977 and 1979)

to count porpoises, both vessels and aircraft were

used. It was discovered that visual search by

trained observers from aircraft was the most effective counting method. Results of the surveys

have not yet been fully evaluated, but these efforts undoubtedly constitute the major attempt

thus far to count marine mammals from the air.

It has been reasonably well-established that

mammal survey work cannot be done by photography, it requires visual search by trained

observers.

Another NMFS project uses 50 to 60 days per

year to measure sea-surface temperatures for

sport fishermen. A spotter in a plane over the

Gulf of Mexico, e.g., uses a low-light-level TV to

search for schools of menhaden, which tend to

congregate near the ocean’s surface and shore in

the morning and to move to deeper water in the

heat of the afternoon.

In two experiments NMFS studied the total

suspended solids and chlorophyll concentrations

in the ocean. In 1977, NMFS began such a study

in the New York Bight. In April 1979, NMFS, in

cooperation with NASA, started the Large Area

Marine Productivity Experiment in which chlorophyll, over a large shelf area, was measured from

a U-2 or C-230 aircraft. Until this project, data

were taken periodically, and only from ships .42

NOAA uses aircraft in a variety of ways. Its

Research Facilities Center (RFC) in Miami, Fla., —

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

mote Sensing to Monitoring and Studying Dispersion in Ocean

Dumping, First International Ocean Du-mping Symposium, Kingston, R. I., Oct. 10-13, 1978.

4ZU. s, ~partment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Services, Northeast Fisheries Service, LAMPEX (Large Area Marine Productivz”ty

Experiment, Sea- Truth Data Re@rt, APT 17-19, 1979, Sandy

Hook Laboratory, report No. SHL - 19-28, July 1979.

Photo credit National Space Technology Laboratories

Air-droppable instruments are used to collect

ocean and geophysical data

provides instrumented aircraft in support of a

variety of environmental research programs.

RFC operates three four-engine turboprop aircraft, two WP-3D Orions, and one WC-130 B

Hercules, equipped with sophisticated research

systems capable of measuring a wide range of atmospheric and oceanic parameters. In addition,

RFC operates four helicopters in the conduct of

the Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program. NOAA’s National Ocean Survey operates two other aircraft to flightcheck aircraft charts; one of these aircraft is used to support National Weather Service snow studies.

Another NOAA project involves the installations of the Aircraft-to-Satellite Data Relay for

weather forecasting on 17 Boeing 747’s owned by

various airlines. Data on air temperature and

wind velocity are collected every 71A minutes,

stored, and broadcast once an hour. With the addition of a microprocessor to this system, the

possibility of recording and transmitting additional atmospheric observations by scheduled

airliner and ship traffic is increased. Normally, a

Boeing 747, records pressure altitude, radio altitude, air temperature, humidity, and air velocity

with respect to the aircraft and with respect to the

ground. These data are used by onboard computers to provide needed information for aircraft

operations. 43 NOAA is currently collecting this

tsErik M(llo-Christensen, Department of Meteorolo~, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, letter to OTA, Sept. 1, 1979.
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies ● 103

data from 100 Boeing 747’s as part of the World

Weather Experiment. The data are presently

stored on an aircraft tape recorder which must

later be removed from the aircraft. An alternative to collecting these data would be to interrogate the aircraft from communications satellites and to retransmit the data to a ground station.

Navy uses three oceanographic survey aircraft

(RP-3A) assigned to the Oceanographic Development Squadron (VXN-F), located at the Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Patuxent, Md. , to

conduct oceanographic, acoustic, sea ice, and

magnetic surveys and other research experiments. These aircraft provide some direct support to the fleet for Arctic and antisubmarine

warfare operations, but their major function is to

collect ocean and geophysical data to meet various high-priority requirements — for both operational and research and development needs. In

addition, Navy uses the ship Chauvenet and its

workboats, to engage in nearly full-time bathymetric measurements covering about 20,000

linear miles, at a cost of $7.5 million, annually.

About 200 times this coverage would be desirable. To increase the areal coverage, Navy intends to let a contract for a pulsed, scanning,

blue-green laser of about 350 kW to be installed

on a helicopter. In daylight hours, this laser

would measure ocean depths to 20m and in typical coastal waters should cover at least one-third

more area than the Chauvenet. At an expected

cost of $2.5 million, delivery should be in fiscal

year 1983.

The Defense Mapping Agency has a modest

development program for using lasers fo r

bathymetry in coastal waters. The lasers will be

installed on aircraft rather than on satellites in

order to maximize accuracy and to minimize the

chance of personal injury from the laser. The National Ocean Survey, Navy, and NASA are jointly supporting development of the helicoptermounted laser-depth measuring system.

Aircraft v. Spacecraft

NASA has conducted a comparison of costs for

dedicated airplane and spacecraft missions for

remote water-monitoring of U.S. coastal zones .44

NASA initially considered large, well-instrumented aircraft because they provide large payload capacity at long range with adequate speed.

It found, however, that large aircraft such as the

RP-3 and C-130 cannot compete with small business airplanes such as the Falcon twin-engine jet.

The twin-engine business jet provides reasonable

dependability, is readily adaptable for carrying

remote sensors, and does not require extensive

airport support facilities nor long runways. Furthermore, it has low operating and purchase

costs.

Compared to a satellite, an aircraft provides

more site-viewing opportunities, at less cost;

however, an aircraft becomes 2 to 3 times more

costly than a spacecraft as the variable path

coverage is increased and as the mission duration

goes beyond 3 years.

Moreover, aircraft have particular problems

with data management. Unlike satellite programs such as Landsat and SMS/GOES that have

established, sophisticated ground-process systems, the routine processing of aircraft gathered

data is plagued with problems from flight-path

errors, altitude variations along the flightpath,

and altitude changes. In addition, data cannot

be retrieved easily without having to write a letter

to the agency in charge of past flights in order to

get the data in a computer-compatible format.

This approach applies, e.g., to the Gulf Stream

overflights carried out by Coast Guard for which

the resultant data appear as printed maps of

tracks and roughly interpolated isotherms. Modern technology can certainly ameliorate this situation but Coast Guard may not have the inhouse technological capability to do this at present.

Aircraft cover large areas more rapidly than

ships can and with better spatial resolution than

satellites can. They are also capable of covering a

small area intensively over a short time. The optimum approach suggested in the NASA study

would be to use satellites for large area, long-

—.— . .—.—.—

ttwa ne L. Darnell, L’() m@ T;3(J?? Y of Capabilities and Costs of

Dedicated A ir@ane and Spacecraft Missions [or Remote Water

Monitoring of U S. Coastal Zones, NASA Technical Memorandum

No. 74046, December 1977.
104 . Technology and Oceanography

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

Helicopters

Helicopters are in limited use aboard oceanographic research vessels. Three of Navy’s ships,

two ships of NOAA, and five of the seven Coast

Guard vessels are equipped for helicopters.

Helicopters are used more extensively for commercial transportation and for industrial operations in coastal waters.

Commercial helicopter operations include inspection, crew change, medical and emergency

evacuation, and ice surveillance. Navy uses helicopters extensively for antisubmarine warfare

operations where instrumentation arrays are lowered into the water and towed at a much higher

rate of speed than when towed by ship. Also,

military helicopters are equipped with thermal

scanners for measurement of infrared signature

of aircraft and ships. Oceanographic research

and operational use by the military has been limited to testing new instrumentation systems. Like

aircraft, helicopters have dropped buoys and

XBTs and have received data from them on wave

measurements and water and air temperature.

NOAA has used helicopters in the conduct of the

Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program.
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies ● 105

OCEAN DATA SYSTEMS

Rapidly developing computer and communications technologies have resulted in the generation of large quantities of remotely sensed data

that will soon overload the present oceanic data

archives unless the same technology is applied to

data inventory, processing, and distribution.

Much of the data generated is not conveniently

available outside of the major Federal agency offices. Thus, the growing need for more near realtime data for status and forecast information,

coastal zone management, fisheries management, monitoring of marine pollution, and the

investigation of many other oceanic problems is

not being met.

For data to be of value to a variety of users,

program planners must plan not only for the collection of data, but also for the distribution and

storage of data. Designing for user needs cuts

across agency missions and requires consideration

of various industrial, institutional, and individual capabilities to handle data. One major

consideration is whether to provide real-time

data, retrospective data, or both. Another consideration is how to standardize data formats in

order to store data in archive centers and to ensure their easy availability to a large community

of users.

Data Archival Centers

Environmental Data and Information Service

In the context of data management, the archival centers outlive individual projects. Thus, it

becomes exceedingly important that they are

well-managed and provide the function of receiving and distributing data with convenience and

reasonable cost to the user.

Although many agencies and institutions are

involved in the collection of oceanographic data,

NOAA’s EDIS is the primary Federal organization specifically created to manage environmental data and information for use by Federal,

State, and local agencies, and the general public.

To carry out this mission, EDIS operates a network of specialized data centers that include:45

———.—

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

●

●

●

●

●

●

National Climatic Center– acquires, archives, and disseminates climatological

data. It is not only the collection center and

custodian of all U.S. weather records but

also the largest of EDIS centers as well as the

largest climate center in the world. It includes the Satellite Data Services Division.

Satellite Data Services Division (SDSD)

–provides environmental and Earth resources satellite data and products derived

from the data to its users after the original

collection purpose is complete.

National Oceanographic Data Center

(NODC)–acquires, archives, and distributes oceanographic data. It houses the

world’s largest usable collection of marine

data. NODC operates EDIS’ multidisciplinary Environmenta l Dat a Inde x

(ENDEX) which provides over 14,000 referral listings to data files held by NOAA, other

Federal agencies, State and local governments, universities, and private industry.

This referral capability greatly enhances

EDIS archival capabilities.

National Geophysical and Solar- Terrestrial

Data Center– acquires, archives, and disseminates solid earth and marine geological

and geophysical data. Maintains separate

archives for special data sets from programs

such as International Decade of Ocean Exploration.

Environmental Science and Information

Center– is NOAA’s information specialist,

librarian, and publishing branch. It provides computerized literature searches from

over 100 automated bibliographic data

bases.

Center for Environmental Assessment Services — designs projects and services to provide

national decisionmakers with data, analysis,

assessments, and interpretations.

Discussion of Two EDIS Centers

The National Oceanographic Data Center.

–Through a series of policy agreements negotiated with NOAA, many agencies (NSF, DOD,

USGS, BLM) encourage or require their pro9(3-710 0 - 81 - 8
106 ● Technology and Oceanography

grams and contractors to follow EDIS data management procedures. Some people specify that

selected oceanic data be archived at NODC. All

data received by NODC are requested to be accompanied by full documentation and instructions for this documentation are widely distributed. Much of the data archived at NODC is in

the form of averages made over large regions and

at irregular time intervals. This averaged data is

inadequate for studying many dynamic ocean

processes. In addition, data at NODC are stored

in many other forms, much of it just as it is received; accuracy and calibration information is

often missing from data files. Guidelines for data

format submissions could be improved, and managers of programs could be required to take data

management and archival needs into consideration during project planning.

Since NODC is and will remain the primary

data bank for archiving oceanographic data and

since instrumentation and data-distribution technology is changing rapidly, a review of NODC

practices seems necessary in order to provide

faster access and wider public distribution of

data from Federal programs.

Centralizing all oceanographic data in a single

data center may not offer the specialized advantages of using distributed data storage methods. ENDEX and the Oceanic and Atmospheric

Scientific Information System have been established by NOAA to provide users with a computerized referral to available environmental

data files and published data in the environmental sciences and marine and coastal resources,

respectively. This centralization is a natural first

step in establishing distributed archival centers

both on a data content and regional basis available on dial-up computer terminals.

Satellite Data Services Division. –Satellite

data services from NOAA’s SDSD of EDIS are colocated with NESS’ operations center. Each day

SDSD receives hundreds of satellite images in a

variety of forms — negatives, film loops, and

magnetic tapes. NOAA’s archive, present since

1974, contains several million images from the

earliest meteorological satellites of the 1960’s

through those from the most recent geostationary

and orbiting spacecraft. 46 47

Satellite data are most often received in the

form of photographic imagery. The quantitative

information that can be derived from a photograph is limited. Analysis of satellite data requires data that are available in computer-compatible formats. To accomplish this task, formatting must be considered on a user basis during

satellite design. Normally, natural formats are

used that optimize acquisition. In such cases,

there is a need to develop standards for reformatted “exchange formats” for users.

Since January 1980, all digital data from

satellites have been archived permanently. Questions about exchanging formats to provide compatibility of these data to users needs must be

answered. Some have suggested that part of the

budget for satellite efforts should be devoted to

making data more readily usable by non -

Government organizations. This would force

data management planning, including distribution and archiving, on the agencies that now produce satellite data so that the data is available in

compatible formats. This will also prevent

satellite projects from being solely based on inhouse science and users and would require the input of data management ideas from the outside

in an effective manner .48

Files at SDSD contain imagery from many

operational and experimental spacecraft. In addition to the visible light images, infrared images

are available from Nimbus, NOAA, an d

SMS/GOES satellite series. The imagery from experimental, polar-orbiting satellites is in great

demand by investigators around the world, and

constitutes one of the archive’s most active

holdings.

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

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

4TU.S. Department of Commerce, National Environmental Satellite Service, “Satellite Data Users Bulletin, ” vol. 1, No. 2, August

1979.

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

1980.
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies ● 107

In SDSD archives, the Tiros-lV data are cataloged in the form of composite pictures of the

Northern and Southern Hemispheres made upon

mosaics of Tires imagery. The catalog is issued

monthly, typically 6 months after the data have

been obtained. The photographic images are not

corrected for viewing angle nor arranged in

geographical coordinates, and the navigational

data have to be figured out from orbital information if there are no landmarks visible. Since there

are no landmarks in the ocean, it is often difficult

to interpret the data.

The current archives are increasingly unable to

handle the present digital data system, and new

satellite programs will exacerbate the problem.

Large data-base management systems will be

needed to properly archive and retrieve data and

to coordinate activities of the various NOAA data

centers in the future.

Data Acquisition

There are three categories of oceanographic

data that are collected. The first includes in situ

measurements provided in various formats by

either research investigators or survey groups.

The second is surface data transmitted from

monitoring stations such as ice stations or oceandata buoys. The third is data from remote sensors, including directly transmitted satellite data,

and recorded data, like that from aircraft.

Data from all categories are being fed into the

data centers at increasing rates. Large-scale projects are providing large new bases of category 1

data. The National Ocean Data Buoy program is

providing category 2 unattended surface data;

and the various satellites are furnishing a downpour of category 3 data. Very few of these programs were reviewed at their inception with respect to data archival needs/requirements.

To handle the increased data rates so that data

from ships, satellites, and buoys can be compared, processed, and analyzed together, it may

be necessary to equip some oceanographic ships

with compatible data systems that label all data

in a consistent manner and that produce information for the national file as soon as possible

after data have been taken. Such an acquisition

system could also collect auxiliary data, such as

water temperature and salinity, windspeed, barometric pressure, depth of water, navigation data,

and other variables. With compatible ship datalogging systems, there would be an incentive to

standardize the interfaces between instruments

and data loggers. Moreover, if academic ship

operations are centralized into regional centers,

the ship data system could be the responsibility of

the regional center. For NOAA’s fleet, it may

also be advantageous to centralize the data and

ship instrumentation activity.

If the automatic means of acquiring the data

and then transmitting the data via satellites is

achieved, significant new data bases may result.

Present satellite data have been discussed fairly

extensively. However, future satellite systems will

each introduce new problems of acquisition by

the data centers.

Data Distribution

Conventional distribution of data from archives is accomplished by the physical transmittal

of the data media, e.g., by mail. Data distribution via communication satellite will also become

important, thus entailing data distribution from

central computerized storage to distant analysis

laboratories. Automatic data retrieval systems,

transmitters, receiving systems, and methods for

data request and charging must be developed by

NASA and NOAA.

Landsat and Seasat: Two Recent Data Distribution Examples. — The Landsat program,

after 9 years of successful operation, is improving

its distribution system by making available dialup inquiry of inventory. This service will indicate

the data available by display on a computer terminal. This combination of easy access to inventory listing and the mailing of data tapes for use

on the user’s computers probably represents the

best present compromise between economy and

convenience.
108 ● Technology and Oceanography

Seasat-A was the first ocean research satellite.

Its data were initially furnished to the various investigators whose participation was selected by

prior proposal reviews and acceptance. However,

data from Seasat-A are of special interest to

many oceanographers. During its operation, Seasat-A collected a unique combination of simultaneous data on sea-surface temperature, roughness, elevation, and waves.

NOAA/EDIS has started to distribute 70 mm

copies of quarter-width swaths of the synthetic

aperture radar data from Seasat; however, the

different swaths are not assembled or combined,

the navigational and time information is not

readily available, and no combined data sets

from all sensors are readily available. Only

limited data are available in digital form outside

of the Federal agencies and there has been no

concerted effort to make the data available to the

outside scientific community.

The Seasat failure reduced the urgency of devising a data distribution operation. However,

some of the Seasat sensors were innovative and

have provided data challenging to interpret.

Direct Satellite Data Receivers.-–EDIS cannot meet the needs of direct readout users of

large volumes of satellite data. These users must

use their own receiving antennas, which can be

quite simple for low-resolution data, such as that

used by TV stations to obtain data for weather

forecasting. Many users have elaborate ground

systems since they process the data qualitatively

for operational or research purposes. At NASA,

data from the geosynchronous meteorological

satellites (GOES) are transmitted to NASA’s

ground station, are processed and reformatted,

and are sent back to NOAA/GOES satellites for

reformatted retransmission to the ground stations

of data users.

For small volume, nonscientific users, data can

be received from EDIS or other sources by direct

communication links. The simplest system for

display and some analysis of reformatted data for

the skilled user is a microcomputer equipped

with a tape recorder (and a video monitor) to

enter data. This system will display data and

enhance contrasts, but will be unable to do more

than rudimentary analysis and data combination. Such a system may be useful for ship

operators, weather forecasters, and limited scientific and educational purposes.

An example of a large volume scientific user is

The Scripps Institution of Oceanography (S1O)

which has a ground station for receiving raw (unprocessed) sensor data and computer facilities for

handling the algorithms necessary to convert the

data to scientific and engineering units. The

system costs (about $700,000) were borne by

NASA and Navy. Operating costs are being

shared by NASA, Navy, and NSF. Utilization of

the system is running at about 18 hours a day, 7

days a week, using data from Tiros-N, Nimbus,

and NOAA -6. The system is being used not only

for scientific purposes, but also, more importantly, to educate oceanographers in the use of

satellite data. Investigators from other organizations besides SIO (such as the Fisheries Center of

NOAA) are using the system.

A group of university and Government laboratories in New England have proposed to establish

a regional satellite remote-sensing data center.

49 50 The center would have antennas for r e

-

ceiving data from several satellites and would

provide data processing, storage, and analysis. A

significant part of the cost of such a system would

be its operations, since a system which acquires

data on a routine basis will have to be staffed to

meet data requests as well as to handle data acquisition. However, many institutions could be

served economically by one center because the

total cost of data systems is small compared to the

cost of data stations and their operation. In fact,

the cost will, as technology advances, possibly

decrease.

Data Management

The Federal agencies responsible for handling

and distributing oceanic data must improve their

data management systems. The present approach to data management will not be adequate

— .

49u s Department of commerce, National Oceanic and Atmos-

. .

pheric Administration, Proposed Regional Remote Sensing, Receiving and Processing Center, Neu~ England Remote Sensing Notes,

No. 1, February 1980.

J

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

Paul F. I“witchell, Office of Naval Research, Attachment “Regional

Satellite Receiving Station, ” Mar. 3, 1980.
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies ● 109

in the future, particularly when new satellite

systems begin to acquire very large amounts of

data.

The costs of collecting environmental satellite

data can only be justified by effective use of the

data for national purposes. Weather and climatology prediction and assessment, ocean climate

and productivity research, and direct use by shipping, fisheries, and other economically vital activities are examples of such use.

For all large data-collection programs, using

satellites or ships or combinations of stations, it

appears important that data management plans

be prepared for both real-time and retrospective

data users. The data archiving centers such as

EDIS should be part of those plans but may not

be the only part. The centers, however, must be

concerned with overall Federal capabilities in

making data available to suit user needs.

In order to ensure that environmental satellite

technology programs serve the intended user

community and deliver the data products that

justified the satellite, plans for satellite and other

remote environmental-sensing programs should

include specific plans for data distribution, including methods for quality control, formats of

data products, near real-time and retrospective

data distribution, cataloging and storage. Without such a plan, a remote-sensing program will

be incomplete and its benefits uncertain.

Because one cannot predict all future uses of

data, data formats need to provide a

documentation of the data so that data

ferent sources can readily be used in

context and combined and compared.

complete

from difthe same

The logical format for Earth sensor data- would be based

on geographical coordinates and time. Satellite

data should be available in geographical coordinates, corrected for viewing angle, spacecraft

position, and altitude.

While communications and data processing

technology is available for environmental data

dissemination, there is a need for a policy and a

plan to prevent expensive duplication and the

possible establishment of duplicative and incompatible systems. This can be done by deciding on a few general rules for data availability

and formats, and by describing general features

of a data dissemination system.
110 ● Technology and Oceanography

MANAGING TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

Whether the foregoing assemblage of ocean

technology, and the related National capabilities, will be adequately maintained or improved

in the future depends on Federal agency management efforts.

The planning for research and development

takes many forms, some formal and some quite

casual. The more technologically oriented agencies, such as Navy and Coast Guard, have very

formal procedures. Others, such as NOAA, have

not developed formal documentation procedures

for planning. It is sometimes argued that the formal planning procedures give rise to too great a

paper load, that too many documents are generated, and that no one knows how to use the

documents generated. The purpose of most planning documents does not lie in the document

itself but in the process that it forces the planner

to use. The process includes determining the

benefits of a program, coordinating multiprograms, determining schedules, and determining the facilities and the technology to be

developed. The need for coordination between

programs within an agency and with those of

other agencies has necessitated the designation of

lead agencies for particular programs.

The technology development programs within

the Federal ocean agencies have been reviewed

and critiqued by a number of study groups over

the past few years. As a result, it is generally

claimed that the existing organizations do not

have adequate management and technical capabilities in technology development and that improvements are needed. 51 52 53

Government agencies having ocean missions

make use of many related ocean technology disciplines, using Government organizations as well as

contractors to accomplish tasks. The size and

organization of ocean technology groups and

s Icommission of Marine Sciences, Engineering, and Resources,

Our Nation and the Sea ( Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government

Printing Office, January 1969).

wu, s. Department of Commerce, National Advisory Committee

on Oceans and Atmosphere, Engineering in the Ocean, Nov. 15,

1974.

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

projects within the agencies vary greatly. Some

agencies that support major ocean programs

have very little expertise within their staffs, while

others have a long history in ocean engineering.

To a large extent, the structure and organizational positions of engineering groups within an

agency depend upon the characteristics of the

agency and the relative role that engineering

plays in accomplishing agency missions. For example, Navy is heavily technology-based, and its

capability of “ fulfilling many missions in the

future depends on technology advances; thus, the

research, development, and testing aspects of

Navy’s support organizations are accented. On

the other hand, most of the activities of EPA are

either scientific or regulatory; relatively little

ocean engineering development is supported by

this agency.

Coast Guard, like Navy, is heavily dependent

on technology advances to accomplish its increasing offshore work. The Arm y Corps of Engineers

is likewise technology oriented in both beach erosion and dredging activities. Both Coast Guard

and the Corps of Engineers have strong, highly

visible engineering organizations.

NASA’s engineering activities are very strong

in space vehicles and in remote sensing used in

oceanographic and other applications. While its

activities requiring ocean technology have been

limited up to now, there are indications that

NASA is increasing its oceanic efforts to gain a

greater ground-truth data base for use with aircraft and spacecraft remote-sensor data collection systems.

The Department of the Interior’s ocean engineering activities are closely coupled to offshore

petroleum leasing and management. USGS is

charged with assuring the conservation of resources and the protection of the environment in

resource development. Ocean engineering at

USGS is accomplished within the geology and

conservation divisions, at field verification and

inspection offices, and under contract.

The technology developments sponsored by

NSF are of three types: ship construction and
Ch. 3—Discussion of Technologies ● 111

maintenance, oceanographic instrumentation,

and deep-sea drilling. All are essentially contracted out in conjunction with the scientific programs. Much ocean engineering development is

accomplished by the academic institutions in

conjunction with NSF-funded science programs.

The Department of Energy (DOE) has a limited staff concerned with oceanic programs, and

its programs are highly technical, e.g. , ocean

thermal energy conversion. Consequently, DOE

must depend mainly on outside contractors and

consultants and on other Government agencies

for ocean engineering support. While this

approach may have some merit, the internal staff

is limited in ocean engineering experience and

thus cannot conduct detailed in-depth reviews of

its programs.

NOAA’s overall engineering efforts are numerous. Most of NOAA’s activities depend on technology, and every major subdivision of NOAA

has an engineering component, although not

necessarily directly related to ocean engineering.

Many of the same technologies are used in the

weather service, the marine fisheries service, the

ocean survey, the climate program, and the environmental laboratories.

Two of NOAA’s organizations concerned with

engineering, the Office of Ocean Engineering

(except for underseas operations)–which was

part of Research and Development –and the Office of Marine Technology-–which was part of

the National Ocean Survey — have recently been

combined into a new organization, the Office of

Ocean Technology and Engineering Services

(OTES), under the direction of the Administrator for Ocean and Atmospheric Services. OTES is

assuming the functions of the replaced organizations. The charter for the new organization is:

● to provide basic ocean engineering support

and to develop advanced technologies to improve NOAA’s products, services, and observations of the atmospheric and oceanic conditions from marine stations; and

● to provide technological support of selected

national programs, such as ocean energy development (under DOE programs), resource

management, and others. 54

Assuming transfer of personnel and funds from

the former activities, the new OTES division will

have a staff of about 138 people of which 72 will

be engineers. Work locations will be at NOAA

headquarters and at least three field laboratories.

The types of projects that this new division will

have, based on the projects contained within its

predecessor organizations, include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

bathymetric swath survey system;

shipboard acoustic current-profiling system;

underway towed water-sampling system;

tidal height-measuring system;

coastal ocean dynamics application radar

for current measurements;

data buoy development and operations;

advanced digital side-looking sonar (with

NASA);

continuous in situ sediment analyzer;

ocean thermal energy conversion (support to

DOE); and

analysis of ocean-pollution observation systems.

While the merging of NOAA’s engineering offices into OTES may solve some of NOAA’s engineering management problems by using more

engineers to support NOAA ocean programs, it

appears that other management problems must

still be addressed. NOAA engineering groups are

scattered throughout the many components of

NOAA (65 engineers and technicians are located

at various NOAA marine centers). The overall

engineering capability of the scattered components will depend on how communications are

established.

While NOAA’s organization management does

not show engineering within EDIS, it is apparent

that emphasis within that organization on engi-

— — —

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

pheric Administration, ocean Engzncertrrg Programs [n th< Na -

tional Oceanic and A t mospher-tc A rirnzn~stratlonl Washington,

D. C., Mar. 31, 1980.
112 • Technology and Oceanography

neering aspects could aid in the archiving and

management of data.

For the newly formed OTES to gain a credible

capability, it must gain a stronger and broader

base of engineering expertise, provide communication channels and exchange of skills between

engineers throughout NOAA, provide a direct

line of engineering advice to the Administrator of

NOAA, and initiate more cost-effective engineering solutions to NOAA’s engineering-related

problems.

One of the most important goals is to gain a

stronger base of expertise. The central office for

technology development at NOAA must have

adequate authority and capability to address the

important technology problems in oceanography

and in NOAA. Otherwise, the routine engineering-support tasks could better be done in the laboratories and in other field operations.

Technology management capability within the

agencies varies quite considerably, some being

weak and others being strong. Some agencies,

such as DOE with large technological programs

(OTEC) have little ocean engineering management capability. Others, such as Navy, have continuing strong technological needs and have

staffed accordingly. Still others such as NOAA

have considerable technological efforts buried in

their agency programs but have not provided a

strong technological focus within the agency.

Programs to advance the ocean engineering technological base do not get strong support outside

Navy. The concept of an institute, such as that

proposed by the National Advisory Committee on

Oceans and Atmosphere, for providing a strong

support to the civil sector has not been undertaken by any of the agencies, and it appears that

most Federal efforts in ocean engineering will remain as scattered and diffuse as the programs

and research needs are now.
Chapter 4

Selected National Programs
Contents

Page

Ocean Margin Drilling Program . ...........116

Program Plan . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116

Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . .116

Budget . . . . . . . . . . . , . , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..117

Program Management. . . . . . , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Analysis of OMDP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....119

National Oceanic Satellite System . . . . .......125

NOSS Program . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . .125

NOSS Users and User Needs . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Key Features of NOSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128

NOSS Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . 130

Analysis of NOSS Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . .132

Fisheries and Living Resources Research

Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........139

The Fishery Conservation and Management Act. .139

Fishery Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . 140

Fishery Research and Stock Assessment. . . . . . . . . 141

Technology . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Future Fishery Research and Development . . . . . . 144

Krill Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... , . .145

The Marine Mammal Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Analysis of the Fisheries and Living Resources

Research Program . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

The Climate Research Program . . . . . . . . .. ...150

The National Climate Program Act of 1978 .. ...150

Measurement Needs for Climate and Ocean

Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . , . . 151

TABLES

Table No. Pag e

29. Proposed Ocean Margin Drilling Program

Budget Fiscal Year 1981 -90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

NOSS Program Cost Estimates . ...........126

Funding Profile by Agency by

Fiscal Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....127

Comparison of Orbit Selections–

Oceanographic Satellites . ...............129

NOSS Operational Geophysical

Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . .........133

NMFS Research Sea Days Support –

Fiscal Years 1979 -81. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......144

Cost Estimate for NOAA Fleet Support

of FCMA-Related Research — Fiscal

Year 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......145

FIGURES

Figures Page

l3.

14,

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22,

23.

Ocean Margin Drilling Program Plan. .. ....117

Diagram of a Typical Deep-Water Riser

Drilling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .. 118

Major Program Milestones and Budget –

Proposed Ocean Margin Drilling Program,

National Science Foundation . . . . . . . . . ... , 120

Deepwater Drilling Technology/Water Depth

Spectrum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......122

Goddard Concept of NOSS Spacecraft .. ....129

NOSS Functional Diagram. . .............130

NOSS End-to-End System . . . . . . . . . . .. ...131

NOSS Altimeter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 134

NOSS Coastal Zone Color Scanner/2

(czcs/2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....-.135

NOSS Large Antenna Multifrequency

Microwave Radiometer . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . 136

NOSS Scatterometer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Chapter 4

Selected National Programs

Four national programs are presented in detail in this chapter because they

represent the institutional and technological opportunities and problems facing

Federal efforts in oceanography today.

Two of the programs are major new ocean program initiatives that will depend on the development of large, new technology systems. The Ocean Margin

Drilling Program (OMDP) is a scientific endeavor unique for its private industry

support. The National Oceanic Satellite System (NOSS) combines civilian and

military operational goals with related scientific investigations.

The remaining two programs will incorporate a mixture of conventional

technology already in use plus advanced technologies tailored to research needs.

Both programs have been mandated by Congress. The Federal program in fisheries and other living resources has been in existence for some time, but has

recently been directed to focus its research more directly on resource management problems. The Federal program in climate research, when fully operational, will attempt to provide climate information and prediction services.

115
116 ● Technology and Oceanography

OCEAN MARGIN DRILLING PROGRAM (OMDP)

A program of new marine geologic investigations to gain knowledge of the nature and origin

of the Earth began detailed planning in fiscal

year 1981. Undertaken by the National Science

Foundation (NSF), this $693 million, 10-year

drilling program is a new thrust to investigate

the geology of continental margins and ocean

crust using deep-ocean drilling. (Some of the

margin regions, which are the borders between

continental shelves and the deep ocean, could

contain substantial oil and gas resources in addition to valuable geologic information; but very

little evidence of this possibility has yet to be collected.) Major ocean technology development,

particularly in the early stages of the program,

will be necessary to develop the deep-drilling

equipment and techniques for accomplishing the

OMDP science goals.

In some ways, OMDP is an extension of NSF’s

Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP), that has been

in effect since 1968. That program, which may

be terminated in fiscal year 1982, has resulted in

considerable scientific accomplishments. The

many boreholes that were drilled have yielded

major scientific knowledge about the nature of

the surface features of the Earth, the chronology

of tectonic and environmental events, the nature

of natural disasters, and the geological framework in which economic concentrations of resources are located. Equally important are the

technological advances made in the recovery of

soft sediments from the ocean floor. A hydraulically driven piston-coring device (the Hydraulic

Piston Corer) was developed that has successfully

recovered continuous sequences, hundreds of

meters long, of undisturbed ocean-floor sediment. This device could open the way to a whole

new series of studies on the:

●

●

●

●

evolution of global climate, measured on

time scales of a decade to millions of years;

evolutionary development of marine plankton during the last 10 to 15 million years;

sedimentary structure of deep-sea fan deposits, which are the most probable reservoirs of

any deepwater hydrocarbons; and

suitability of various types of deep-sea deposits as repositories for nuclear waste.

OMDP itself has resulted from years of planning by Government-sponsored committees.

Planning began in 1973 and continued through

several conferences and NSF reviews in the late

1970’s. Finally, at an NSF-sponsored meeting in

Houston, Tex., during March 1980, scientists

and engineers from academic institutions, petroleum companies, and Government agencies developed an initial plan for a model ocean margin

drilling program. That plan is the principal basis

for NSF’s present OMDP.1

Program Plan

Scientific objectives stated in the plan are to investigate:

● passive and active continental margins;

● the Earth’s crust beneath the deep ocean;

and

● the deep-sea sediments which could yield

historic environmental information on the

Earth, especially those at the opening of the

Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico.

Meeting these objectives involves drilling 15 holes

at 10 sites (fig. 13). Two sites will be in the Pacific

Ocean; one will be in Antarctica’s Weddell Sea,

and the rest will be in the Atlantic Ocean and the

Gulf of Mexico. The deepest hole (in the southeast Gulf of Mexico) in the model program will

be about 21,000-ft below the sea floor in about

11,000 ft of water. OMDP’s plan allots 4 years for

drilling preparation and 6 years for actual drilling. Furthermore, it presents an initial estimate

of operational and program-site costs.

Technology

The technology plans include the conversion of

the Government -owned Glomar Explorer to a

deep-drilling ship and the development of a riser

‘For a detailed discussion and analysis of the Ocean Margin Drilling Program and all references to other reports, see O-I-A technical

memorandum, Ocean Margtn Drtllingt May 1980.
Ch. 4—Selected National Programs ● 117

Figure 13.—Ocean Margin Drilling Program Plan

She descr, ptmn and 1984 1985 1986 1987

drllllng oblec[lves

19&7 1989

J I F IMIAIMIJIJ IAI SIOINI D JIF{MIAl~ J I J IAIS IOINID JI F IMl AIM I J I J I AISIOINI D JIFl ~AIMIJ I J 1A Is lol N ID JIFIMIAIMIJIJIAISIOINIO JIFI

Mobti!zat!on- 10days

1 West coast ofCosta Rica 9

WD 3 Okm (9843 ftl HD 3 5km

(11 650 tt) ICOO . Cor, ng

OC on stat, on – 116 days

Port call & frans!tr!me—6 days

2 Mid america trench

WD 6 Okm (20 000 ftl HD 1 5km

(50 OOU ftl 30,, Cor, ng

AM on stal, on – 144 days

Port call & rrans, f t,me —30 days

3 Waddell sea, 6 IK.IOS

WD 365 Ohm (12 00016500 ft)

HD 252 Okm (6006 500 III

1oo, 3 Corinq

PO on slatlon — 60 days

Porr call & mans!! r!me—52 days

4 Offshore New Jersey upper nso

WO 2 4km 16 OW W HD 4 5km

(18 OIY3 Itl 303 CcJr, n~ PM 1s1

hole w c13e 0“ stat, or 256 days

Porf call & Irans(!t,me —27 days

5 Moroccan matgln

WD 3 5km 111500 ftl t+D 354 Okm

(1 1 5(II 13200 Itt30, c Cor, ng

PM on sfatton – 181 days

Dcydock & !,ans, t t,me —40 days

6 Norlh Atlantlc mld ocean

WD 3 OKm 110000 f!) +lD 3 Ohm

(10 000 !!1 30 Cor, ng

OC on sta!!on – 158 days

Port call & I,ans!tf!me — 18 days

7 So Central Gull of Mexico

WD 3 75km (12 300 !!1 HD 5 Okm

t 17 OW3 111 30, e Cor, ng

PM on Staf, on 1!33 day’s

Porr call b f,ansIt l!me — 13 days

8 East 01 Bafbados

WD 3 Okm i 10 COO 111 HD 5 Okm

(16 O@l Ill 5 0

1 Coong

AM on stat!on - 254 days

Drydock b !rans!t t!me —39 days

9 Oftshore New Jersey, mod.nse

WD 3 Okm 110000111 HD 6 Okm

120003 ftlW e Cor, ng

PM on staton — 324 days

Port call L% !ranslt rime—16 days

10 Southeast Gulf of Mexico

WD 3 5km 111 WI 111 HD 6 5km

(21 OCHI Ill 30’s Cor, ng

PM on station – 296 days

Demobli!zarm-5 days

Notes. WD-water deDth, HD-hole der3th below sea floor. OC.ocean crust oblectlves. AM.active maraln oblectlves, PO@aleo oceanography objectives,

PM-passive margin oblectlves Coring percentages shown are for hole dept’hs below ZO.inch cas!nj “

SOURCE OMDP overview, NSF, June 30, 1980

system* (fig. 14) for controlled drilling in up to

13,000 ft of water and down to 20,000-ft below

the sea floor.

Since this drilling technology has not been developed, OMDP requires a significant element of

technology development. The 12, 300-ft riser pipe

required for the deepest margin sites is about

twice the depth of existing technology, therefore,

a major effort will be needed to develop the riser

and the entire deep-drilling and well-control system. Basic designs of the system, to be prepared

during fiscal year 1981, will need careful evaluation.

* A riser is a large-diameter pipe. extending from the sea floor to

the dri II ing ship on the surface, through which the drill pipe is inserted. “I-he riser acts as a conduit for drilling fluid, which, after bei ng pum pml down the pipe flows back up to the ship between the

pipe and the riser. The riser is also used to help control pressure in

the wel I and to 5U pport blowout prevention.

Since the technology is uncertain, so are the

cost estimates. Because extremely deep holes are

very costly, the sites must be selected with great

care and attention to engineering conditions as

well as to scientific objectives.

Budget

It is planned that the program will be jointly

funded by the Federal Government (NSF) and

the petroleum industry, each sharing 50 percent

of the cost over the 10-year period. By November

1980, eight major petroleum companies had

agreed to participate and support the first year’s

efforts. The total budget for the 10-year program

is now estimated at $693 million with the Federal

Government share at $346.5 million.
118 ● Technology and Oceanography

Figure 14.—Diagram of a Typical Deep-Water Riser Table 29 illustrates the proposed budget from

fiscal year 1981 to fiscal year 1990 for the program and divides it into major components of

ship conversion, vessel operation, ship operation

management, scientific operations, advisory and

management support, systems support, and

science programs. The budget includes a 10 percent per year inflation factor for each year

beyond fiscal year 1981; thus a considerable portion of the $693 million total budget is for inflation. During fiscal year 1981 the total program

budget will be refined, based on system designs

and plans to be prepared. A major commitment

will be made with approval of the fiscal year 1982

budget because that is when the ship conversion

and large expenditures will begin (see fig. 15 for

major program milestones). Since the ship conversion and riser-development cost estimates

could escalate substantially when a final design is

completed, they must be evaluated prior to the

decision to proceed with hardware contracts.

During 1980 some cost estimates for the ship and

riser were made that were almost double the

budget figures. These discrepancies have not yet

been reconciled by NSF, so the status of budget

changes, or tradeoffs if one component cost escalates, is now uncertain.

;

/

control system

12,000 ft i

. .

er

I control

reentry

Mud line

SOURCE Project Contrlbullons Program Review for Director. NSF. presented

Apr 3, 1978 Deep-Sea Dr!lllng Project, IPOD

Table 29.—Proposed Ocean Margin Drilling Program Budget—Fiscal Year 1981-90

August 1,1980 (million of dollars)

Activity 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Total

Ship conversion and

riser development. . . . $ 2.0

Vessel operations. . . . . 0.0

Management of ship

operations. . . . . . . . . . 0.0

Scientific operations . . 0.0

Advisory and

management support. 1.5

System support

contractors . . . . . . . . . 2.0

Science programs. . . . . 4.5

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . $10.0

$20.5

0.0

$46.0

0.0

$36.0 0.0

24.0 $48.3

$104.5

320.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.6

5.0 9.9

3.0 5.5

10.9 12.0

6.1 6.7

13.4 14.8

7.3 8.0

1.0

2.7

67.0

39.9

1.5 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.3 16.9

2.0

8.0

2.0

10.0

2.4 2.7

11.0 12.1

2.9 3.2

13.3 14.6

3.5 2.4

16.1 19.2

2.0

10.0

25.1

118.8

$32.0 $60.0 $82.7 $80.0 $88.0 $96.7 $106.4 $117.0 $20.0 $692.8

NOTES: This August 1, 1960 budget reflects:

a) A start-up or orientation of the SIC in late fiscal year 1961.

b) Mainly a design effort by the SIC in fiscal year 1982—long-lead hardware procurement limited to approximately $12 million.

c)Ship completion date, April 1964.

d) Fiscal year 1961 Government funding $5 million and 1962 Government funding $16 million.

SOURCE: National Science Foundation.
Ch. 4—Selected National Programs • 119

Photo credit’ U.S. Navy

Glomar Explorer, a 52,000-ton, 620-f t-long ship, originally built by the Central Intelligence Agency to recover

a Russian submarine, is proposed to be converted for the Ocean Margin Drilling Program

Program Management

NSF has successfully directed DSDP for the

past 10 years, using oceanographic institutions to

manage the scientific effort. The proposed management structure for OMDP relies on DSDP

staff, a systems support contractor, science support contracts with Joint Oceanographic Institutions (JO I), Inc., and a future systems integration

contractor. The systems integration contractor

will be selected after the program has been

specified in sufficient detail and formal invitations to bid are evaluated. This contractor will

have major project responsibility, including the

design, construction, and operation of the drilling system.

In addition to the basic program management,

NSF plans to establish outside groups to advise

both the director and the OMDP team. A program advisory committee will be comprised of

representatives from industry (40 percent), academia (40 percent), and the public sector (20

percent). The Marine Board of the National Research Council has already selected a smaller advisory group from among those who served on its

deep-ocean drilling, 1978-79 committee. Navy

will be called on for its expertise in ship conversion inspection and supervision. Additional consultants from Government and industry will be

used as required to assist various facets of the program as it develops.

Analysis of OMDP

Objectives

Many scientists believe that the recently

developed plan contains many worthwhile scientific objectives and that the chosen drilling plan

and sites encompass significant scientific investigations that are in keeping with past committees’ recommendations. Whether scientific objectives can be achieved from the holes drilled and

information collected will depend, in large part,

on the capabilities of the technology developed.

Engineers have estimated a 50-percent probability of completing all the planned holes. However,

some deep holes may not be completed as

planned because of the uncertainty associated

with deep-drilling in as yet untried geologic envi-
120 ● Technology and Oceanography

Figure 15.—Major Program Milestones and Budget—Proposed Ocean Margin Drilling Program,

National Science Foundation

15 August 1980

P 1- CYBl

.: }

.;

,

SOURCE National Science Foundation

ronments. As the technology is developed, better also note that much of the success of past deepestimates of success probabilities for- each hole

can be made, but it is likely that some deep-drilling goals will not be reached.

Program Plan

Many scientists agree that the present OMDP is

probably the broadest scientific program that

could be put together using the Glomar Explorer

in an industry -academia-Government cooperative venture and is worthy of complete support.

They believe that the scientific objectives are of

high priority and that if the petroleum industry

provides 50 percent of the funds, the program

will be a bargain for science. Some claim that

even allowing for the predicted chances of technological failure, each hole or site will offer partial answers to many of the questions asked. They

sea drilling has been from unanticipated results.

However, many scientists believe that OMDP

may not be the best, the most appropriate, nor

the most important scientific program that could

be proposed for exploring the ocean floor.

There is wide agreement, even among those

who support the present program, that more emphasis on geophysical surveys is needed. While

funds are reserved for such surveys and support, a

detailed plan for a science program is still in the

planning stage. The plans are under development by JOI, Inc., who has an established scientific advisory committee and several planning advisory committees to consider the outstanding

scientific problems and necessary studies. The

committees are analyzing all existing geologic
Ch. 4—Selected National Programs . 121

Photo credit Woods Ho/e Oceanographic /nsfItut/on

Core samples from deep-sea drilling

and geophysical data available in order to recommend where new surveys are most critical.

Because scientists disagree on the program’s

goals and scope, it is important that the future

peer review process for the scientific program be

more explicitly defined. This process is now being

developed by NSF. Since the holes, sites, and objectives are likely to change as the technology and

plans are developed, additional review will be

necessary to assure broad support and proper attention to high-priority scientific problems.

In addition, the most advanced state-of-the-art

geophysical surveying methods and experiments

will eventually be needed. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, “Continental

Margins Geological and Geophysical Research

Needs and Problems” (known as the “Bally”

report), recommended that academic institutions

have at least one modern, thoroughly equipped,

state-of-the-art geophysical surveying vessel, as

well as supplementary equipment aboard existing

oceanographic ships for conducting multiship

surveys. Such technology is not now included in

OMDP and will probably need to be funded from

other sources.

Until the Explorer is ready to begin drilling,

the selection of sites and holes will remain flexible. The drilling plan proposed during March

1980 was based on existing knowledge. Additional surveying, both within and without this

program, will change concepts and drilling sites.

To this end, the primary scientific task for fiscal

year 1981 will be the synthesis of existing geological and geophysical data in 11 geographic regions

targeted as candidate drilling areas. These

regional syntheses will form the foundation on

which the science” program will be developed.

However, the capabilities of the Explorer technology and the funds available will have the major influences on any changes to the science program.

Anticipated Technological Problems

In reviewing the effort that will be required to

develop the technology for meeting the present

OMDP goals, heavy reliance was placed by OTA

on an April 1980 report entitled “Engineering for

Deep-Sea Drilling for Scientific Purposes, ” by the

Marine Board of the National Research Council.

That report and the OTA technical memorandum on ocean margin drilling may be referred to

for more detailed evaluations of future problems

associated with OMDP.

An effective drilling system for the ocean

margins will include a large number of complex

and interrelated components. Most system elements will probably require some modification

from present practice to perform at the extreme

water depth and penetration goals of the program. Problems caused by drilling in unknown

environments with untried technology may cause

engineers and scientists to compromise as the

program proceeds, thus lowering OMDP scientific objectives. Figure 16 outlines the extent of

80-710 0 - 81 - 9
122 ● Technology and Oceanography

Figure 16.—Deepwater Drilling Technology/Water Depth Spectrum

Key: U - Undeveloped; D - Developed but not field tested; E - Extension of existing technology; F - Field tested.

● Solution dependent on casing program and feasibility of extending drilling shallow hole without riser.

SOURCE. National Academv of Sciences, Marine Board, National Resource Council, “EnQlneerln Q for Deep Sea DrllllnQ for SClentlflC PWC)OSeS.”

Washington, D C “1980

present development for major equipment and

indicates future technology development needs.

Some petroleum company participants in

OMDP are concerned that the cost estimates are

too low or that the chances of reaching all the

deep holes are not good. It appears, in general,

that industry participants will force future decisions on realistic technology development goals

and cost estimates.

Industry Participation

The potential of oil and gas resources in the

continental margins is subject to much speculation, but competent geologists claim that these

areas hold significant promise. OMDP would

help establish better scientific information on

which to base further speculation on hydrocarbon resources. In fact, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) expects to benefit from OMDP in its

efforts to evaluate long-range oil and gas potential in offshore regions. As designed, however,

OMDP falls short of a logical oil and gas exploration program. Some petroleum companies claim

that they are not participating in the program

because it is not directed more toward assessing

commercial resources.

Eight out of seventeen petroleum companies

that were invited to sign an agreement to support
Ch. 4—Selected National Programs Ž 123

the first-year OMDP efforts have agreed to do so.

While there will not be a severe financial burden

on these participating companies during the

first year, greater industry participation will be

needed in subsequent years when a much higher

level of funding is necessary. A concern of some

industry participants is the manner in which most

companies commit funds to the program. In

general, the funds that each of the companies

would commit would be funds reprogrammed from

present industry R&D budgets. Thus, there is

concern that participation in the NSF program

would preclude other research and exploration

projects. Some nonparticipating companies are

keeping close watch over the program; and, if the

program benefits change, they may decide to

join.

The companies that OTA surveyed expressed a

variety of reasons for participating. Some that

did not have extensive technology development

programs themselves felt that technology developments would be the principal benefits. Some

foresaw benefits related to the science of sedimentary geology. Very few felt that there were

specific, substantial benefits to industry; however, they felt that there would be long-term intangible benefits, similar to those from DSDP,

from new ideas generated by program results.

None of the companies felt that information on

potential commercial resources would be a great

benefit.

Program Management

OMDP is a major increase in funds and complexity from previous efforts, and thus the

capability and appropriateness of NSF to manage

it is subject to question. Several concerns that

have been noted include: whether NSF can effectively manage the considerable technology development work, whether the extra funds needed for

technology would be taken from other needed

programs, whether the possibility of finding oil

and gas resources should involve the Department

of Energy (DOE) or USGS more directly, and

whether technology needs overshadow science

needs.

Three major aspects in managing the program

are operations, science, and technology development. Scientists are concerned about the current

emphasis on the operational and technology development aspects. The initial plan developed in

March 1980 did not win wide support from the

basic research community. One reason may be

that earlier expectations cannot be met within

the financial, time, and engineering constraints

faced by the project. A more detailed, overall

management plan for science, which spells out

the responsibilities and authority of NSF, industry, JOI, Inc., and the panels, may answer

some of these concerns.

Alternatives to the Present OMDP Plan

In April 1980, OTA convened an advisory

panel of academic scientists to explore possible

alternatives to the present OMDP plan. Most

alternatives suggested by the panel focused on the

scientific efforts and recommend a delay in

developing the technology, and thus the very

deep drilling. While these alternatives lack the

scientific variety of the present plan, they suggest

focusing on a few principal areas of research.

Most advocate using the NAS Bally report, which

is broadly supported as addressing important

problems, for initiating a program. Some advocate making a direct connection between specific science goals and national needs for future

oil and gas resources.

The principal elements in an alternative approach with a greater science focus would be to:

●

●

●

●

plan and conduc t extensive geophysical

surveys as the initial effort and to delay decisions on the technology and operations for

very deep drilling;

identify targets that are within the capability

of existing technology for the early drilling

efforts;

define the goals of the very deep-drilling

phase after the initial work is completed,

assuming that substantially improved technology is developed by that time by industry;

and

seek broad scientific support before each

phase of the program for specific program

plans commensurate with the size of the effort.

Although some of the petroleum companies

may be more willing to support this alternative
124 . Technology and Oceanography

approach, others may not – particularly if drilling is proposed in water depths of less than 6,000

ft. Some companies prefer that only industry exploratory drilling

that are within

regions.

With the above

be permitted in water depths

existing oil and gas leasing

alternative approach, technology would be developed at a dower pace to minimize risks at each step; thus, also making it possible to estimate more accurately the cost at each

phase. Less funding would be required in the

early years of the program, and the decision to

spend more money for a drilling ship might be

delayed. Furthermore, more emphasis would be

placed on geophysical studies and less on developing hardware.

Industry and some academic scientists advocate the need for a greater understanding of

potential hydrocarbon resources in offshore continental margins. The present OMDP offers very

little opportunity for assessing commercial resources. Although some petroleum companies

want the Government to refrain from direct participation in oil and gas exploration, there is

some support for an alternative program that

would include some Government and industry

cooperation in assessing commercial resources.

Thus, a second alternative approach would

probably contain the following elements:

●

●

●

The petroleum industry would take the lead

in planning and conducting a program to

assess the commercial resources on the U.S.

Continental margins.

The Government would offer incentives to

allow industry funding of the program.

Scientific studies would be conducted both

as an adjunct to the industry program and

separately in those areas not covered by industry.

With such an approach, a new science plan

would have to be developed in conjunction with

an industry plan. Industry would then probably

assume the large financial risks and the responsibility for developing the advanced drilling and

well-control technology. The budget and technology development of the Government i n

OMDP would thus be substantially reduced. It is

not certain whether the Glomar Explorer would

be the appropriate vessel for this approach. This

approach would also require substantial changes

to the existing offshore oil and gas leasing practices, including the probable offer of very large

lease-blocks for commercial exploration and

development.
Ch. 4—Selected National Programs Ž 125

NATIONAL OCEANIC SATELLITE SYSTEM (NOSS)

A major new effort in satellite oceanography,

NOSS, was scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1981

and continue to fiscal year 1991. The new administration has recommended a substantial budget

cut and delay. Jointly sponsored and funded by

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and Navy, NOSS

consists of an orbiting spacecraft and dedicated

ground control and data processing systems that

will collect and deliver remotely sensed data

about the global ocean to Navy and NOAA

centers. Although primarily an operational demonstration satellite, NOSS will allocate 25 percent of its payload for research experiments.

Therefore the satellite will be both a prototype

for a future operational system and a station for

some ocean research and experimentation.

Satellite systems like NOSS could become important tools for oceanography because satellites

can provide wide-area coverage of the ocean surface in a single observation and can observe areas

that are infrequently attended by other stations.

At present, meteorological satellites provide only

limited capability to measure the ocean. One research satellite that has some ocean research capabilities within its mission is Nimbus-7, which

was designed for experiments in both pollutionmonitoring and oceanography and has pioneered

technologies for all -weather coverage. However,

more experimentation will be necessary to determine the utility of such satellite data for specific

ocean research programs.

NOSS follows several early satellite missions

that provided oceanic data (Skylab a n d

GEOS-3). However, these data were usually outside of the main purpose of the missions. The first

satellite with a specific ocean research mission

was Seasat-A. Seasat-A was dedicated to pioneering new microwave and radar remote sensing for

oceanography, and was launched in June 1978

with a sensor complement that included one passive and three active radars: a radar altimeter, a

synthetic aperture radar, a radar scatterometer

system, and a passive scanning multichannel

microwave radiometer. These sensor systems acquired real-time data for ocean-surface winds

and temperatures, waveheights, ice conditions,

ocean topography, and coastal storms. T h e

spacecraft completed a scan of the globe about

once every 36 hours, providing extremely highresolution geophysical data. Seasat-A failed

prematurely in October 1978 due to mechanical

problems, after completing 31A months of a projected 1 -year research mission. 2 The cost of the

Seasat-A experiment was about $100 million.

This included no provision for a ground-based

data system to process data at the rate it was acquired aboard the spacecraft.

In early 1978 some planning studies were conducted by NASA to define a Seasat-B followon research spacecraft to Seasat-A. However,

NASA, Navy, and NOAA concluded that there

were fundamental flaws in the design of the Seasat-A data processing system and in the spacecraft itself. They could not immediately agree on

requirements for a follow-on ocean-oriented research satellite beyond those originally submitted

for Seasat-A, Nimbus-G, Tiros-N, and Landsat.

Planning continued throughout 1977 and early

1978, but no funding proposals for a new start for

an oceanographic satellite were requested until

requirements for NOSS were defined. 3

NOSS Program

The NOSS program is currently in the planning stage. The three agencies that support the

program are working together at all levels. During 1980, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved a resource apportionment

among the three agencies as follows: Navy (50

percent), NOAA (25 percent), NASA (25 percent). A reassessment of the levels of participation will be made by the three agencies prior to

the decision to proceed beyond the alternateconcept-study phase now underway.

Launch of the first NOSS spacecraft by the

spaceshuttle was originally scheduled for the

‘U .S. Department of Commerce, National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, Department of Defense, ,Voss, ,Vatton[ll OC1’allt(’

.%tel[[te Sy$tcnt, Washington, D. C., Mar. 23, 1979.

‘S, W. McCandlcss, “An Analysis of the National Oceanic Satel

Iite System, ” discussion paper prepared for OTA, April 1980.
126 “ Technology and Oceanography

third quarter, fiscal year 1986. Once the spacecraft and ground systems are operational, a second satellite will be launched (within approximately 6 to 12 months). A fully operational system would presumably follow if the demonstration program proves successful.

Budget

NOSS program budget estimates submitted to

Congress in 1980 included the costs for the

development of the prototype, the launch of two

satellites, and the continuing operations through

a 5-year demonstration period from fiscal year

1986 to fiscal year 1991. The flight segment of

the program will cost an estimated $240 million

to $350 million. Additional funds budgeted for

instrument development ($125 million to $150

million), ground support ($175 million to $210

million), and science evaluation and other support ($40 million to $50 million) bring the total

to $700 million to $900 million.4 These costs do

not include costs for secondary data distribution

and for satellite communication such as a Western Union TDRSS (Tracking and Data Relay

Satellite System) satellite data link, needed for

the current concept. All of these estimates are in

current (fiscal year 1981 ) dollars and contain no

allowance for inflation. If inflation at the rate of

10 percent per year were added to the above,

NASA estimates the cost would increase to $1 billion to $1.4 billion. Table 30 provides a fiscal

year 1981 estimate of program costs. Table 31

provides an NOSS-funding profile by agency by

fiscal year.

——

~U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science and Technology,

Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Applications, NASA Ftscal

Year 81 Authc~rzzattc~n, 96th Cong., 2d sess., February 1980.

Table 30.—NOSS Program Cost Estimates

(in millions of dollars)

Base program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Flight segment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ground segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Science and evaluation . . . . . . . . . . .

Support (shuttle) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

STS tariff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Management and other support. . . . .

Total a

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$580-760

(240-350)

(125-150)

(175-210)

(20-30)

(20-20)

75-85

45-55

$700-900

aExcludes funding for TDRSS services.

SOURCE: National Aeronautics and Space Admlnlstration, 1980

Mission Goals

Principal goals for NOSS include the attainment of global, all-weather coverage and nearreal-time processing and distribution of oceanic

data for diverse but important activities such as

weather forecasting, climate research, sea-ice

forecasting, ocean-wave forecasting, and ocean

acoustic-propagation predictions. The most important data products from NOSS will describe

the following oceanic parameters:

●

●

●

●

Global Winds. – Measurements of allweather, near-surface windfields are necessary for nearly all operational ocean activities (weather forecasts, fisheries monitoring, military operations). These data provide a basis for waveheight-prediction models and will be useful for climate-prediction

purposes.

Waveheights. –These data will be useful for

correcting wind/wave models and for making direct sea-condition predictions. In turn,

these data can be used for real-time ship

routing and for selection of optimum conditions for undersea missile launching.

Sea-Surface Temperature. – All-weather

measurements of sea-surface temperature

can be used to locate ocean frontal zones for

antisubmarine warfare, fisheries, and longrange weather forecasting.

Chlorophyll Concentrations and Optical Coefficients. — Measurements of surface chlorophyll concentrations may allow observation of plankton and assist in pollution

research. Optical properties of the near-surface water and atmosphere may provide visibility correction factors useful for military

operations.

NOSS Users and User Needs

The primary use of the data collected by NOSS

will be for Federal agencies with operational missions. Secondary uses of the data will be for

Federal research, and for scientific and commercial applications. A TriAgency Mission Needs

Statement has been written that identifies requirements of each funding agency for global

oceanographic data; sufficient oceanographic

data within the territorial waters of the United
Ch. 4—Selected National Programs ● 127

Table 31. —Funding Profile by Agency by Fiscal Year’ (fiscal year 1981 dollars in millions)

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988-91 Total

NASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 34 47 43 30 19 — 179

NOAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 11 29 49 48 32 16 28 217

DOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 40 7 89 77 50 16 29 386

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 85 149 181 155 101 32 57 782

aprellminary Plannlng estimates only —TDRSS charges not Included

SOURCE Nat!onal Aeronautics and Space Admlnlstratlon

States; and a capability for real-time, rapid highvolume processing and distribution of remotely

sensed oceanographic data. 5

Navy needs global monitoring of oceanographic conditions in real-time to provide timely, accurate oceanographic predictions on a global

basis to its operational fleet of surface ships, submarines, and aircraft. NOAA justifies its need

for satellite oceanic data to support its four major

missions in fisheries management; coastal zone

management; mapping and charting; and, most

significantly, weather services which will benefit

directly from the data to be collected. NASA’s interest in NOSS relates to NASA’s role in the expansion of global environmental knowledge, in

its studies of space activities for peaceful and

scientific purposes, and in the useful application

of space science and technology.

Civilian considerations, economic benefits,

and operational data requirements are also

claimed as major justifications for NOSS. Proofof-concept and research demonstrations from

NASA’s Seasat project and from other Government projects (Defense Meteorological Satellite

Program, Tires, Nimbus, GEOS, and Landsat)

have shown applications for civilian users that include offshore oil and gas developers, the fishing

industry, the maritime industry, and the oceanographic research community.

Even though civil-sector needs are widely referred to in NOSS program justifications, civilian

users have only recently been asked to contribute

suggestions. This fact has spurred these users to

organize and state their focused interests in

NOSS. Although major benefits are attributed t o

civilian users, the Federal agencies managing

‘Nat iona [ Ocean ic Sate[ ] ite System Steerin,g Committee, J~ffJpIr

.Yy.ftcm ,~cqui.w!tcjrl T-rt-,qgf’ncy ,Wtsszott ,Veed Statemf,nt, ,Nrattl)nal

ocwrttc Satc[lttc .’$)stc’rrt, Washington, D. C., Aug. 20, 1979.

NOSS cannot be as responsive to research and

commercial users as the users would like when

civil user needs conflict with agency mission

needs.

During 1980, NOAA held a series of five 1 -day

regional conferences around the United States to

inform potential users about NOSS and to encourage their participation in the development of

the program. The conference objectives were to

obtain comments from users on priorities and requirements for NOSS data and to develop methods of participation. The participants in the

workshops expressed the following concerns in a

NOAA draft report of the workshop results:

●

●

●

●

●

Support in the user community for NOSS is

tempered by previous experience with existing satellites. Specifically, the length of time

to receive data and information has been too

long, and the data are not consistent in format and quality.

A data distribution system that works should

be in place prior to launching NOSS. Availability of Nimbus-7 sensor data in conjunction with ongoing marine experiments

would significantly enhance NOSS statements on the capabilities and validity of

satellite-derived data.

Suggestions were made to include near-realtime wind, wave, ice, and water-mass data

from NOSS on a time base comparable to

that of data available from other environmental satellites.

There should be “focused points of contact”

in NOAA with whom users can interact in

lieu of the present system in which five different NOAA components have responsibilities and information.

Before investing in equipment necessary for

using NOSS, certain users want assurances
128 ● Technology and Oceanography

●

that similar satellite systems will operate

after NOSS.

The research users are concerned with the

lack of sufficient computer capabilities to

support planned NOSS research. At present,

no facility can handle the large volume of

data sets that will be generated. A national

facility for interactive processing of NOSS

data is a high-priority requirement among

research and development users.6 

NASA, which has been most sensitive to civilsector needs in the past, has been assigned

responsibility to foster scientific interest in NOSS.

This role may be difficult because some scientific

interests are in conflict with certain operational

objectives. Payload space reserved for science and

archival data files can and will be used for scientific purposes; however, it is not likely that basic

orbital parameters and design configurations will

be changed to accommodate science needs. It

may be difficult to protect and preserve even the

payload reserved for research if overruns occur

and if payload, volume, and power needs grow.

Moreover, concern has been expressed by those

who are not a part of the triagency team that a

single NOSS demonstration project will not

satisfy all of their needs. As a result, NASA is

studying various supplements and alternatives to

NOSS, including other research satellite projects

which, if funded, would provide more comprehensive data. These project proposals are described later in this report.

Key Features of NOSS

NOSS includes two spacecraft and a complete

ground system for receiving and processing data

from each satellite sensor and for supplying that

data to primary networks for handling and storage in both Navy and NOAA. This ground system is at least 25 percent of the total system cost

and a major portion of the program’s hardware.

The entire NOSS system will be designed with at

least a 5-year lifetime so that replacement and

repair will be minimal.

— —

‘[I, S. Department of Commerce, National Ocranic and Atmospheric Administration, Nat ional Earth Satellite !$crvice, Rc/x}rt <~/

the C’tJn/t’rencc Ott /he .Vatttjttal ocwntc Satcllttc S)ISICIH, !k>ptem

her 1980.

The sensors that have been proposed for the

NOSS satellite are based on operational needs

identified by Navy and NOAA with special consideration to those sensors that have had successful previous development and testing. The

following NOSS sensors, that have had varying

amounts of testing on previous satellites, will be

used:

●

●

●

●

A

radar altimeter (AL T). — Developed and

tested on Seasat-A, GEOS-3;

coastal zone color scanner (CZCS). — Developed and tested on Nimbus-7;

large antenna multichannel microwave

radiometer ( LAMM R) O –Adapted from

the scanning microwave radiometer that was

used on Nimbus-7, GEOS-?; and

radar scatterometer (SCATT). — Developed

and tested on Seasat-A.

variety of orbits for a satellite such as NOSS .

can be chosen, including polar, near-polar (Sunsynchronous), and low-inclination orbits. The orbit inclination angle to the Equator can vary,

depending on the satellite’s altitude, the desired

instrumentation swath, the sensor suite, and the

mission objectives. The nominal inclinations for

each kind of orbit and the logical orbit selection

as a function of the primary mission measurements are summarized in table 32. For instance,

if monitoring ocean color is a primary mission requirement, a Sun-synchronous orbit must be used

to provide constant Sun-angle light reflections.

On the other hand, if polar ice coverage is of

primary importance, a polar orbit is required for

optimum coverage.

A near-polar, Sun-synchronous orbit has been

selected for NOSS spacecraft. This orbit is a compromise based on an evaluation of the most important operational needs for ocean coverage and

the optimum operating conditions for all of the

sensors. The indications are that while useful

data coverage of ice conditions can be made from

the near-polar Sun-synchronous orbit selected for

NOSS, open-ocean circulation will definitely require a satellite in a low-inclination orbit like

that of Seasat -A. 7
Ch. 4—Selected National Programs ● 129

Table 32.—Comparison of Orbit Selections—Oceanographic Satellites

Inclination to Equator -

Near-polar Sun- Low inclination

Polar synchronous 970-990 105°- 1150

Measured parameter 87 0-93” (NOSS planned orbit) (Seasat orbit)

Winds . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x ‘-” - x

Waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x x

Sea-surface temperature. . . . . . . . . . x x

Ice edge. ... . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . x (a)

Polar ice dynamics. . . . . . . . . . . . . x (a) —

Color (chlorophyll) coastal area —

Circulation (deep ocean) . . . . . . . . . . . – (a) (b)

X = optimum coverage bRequlre5 a large spacecraft for Optimum cov@ra9@

aLe55 than complete cov@rage

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

System Description

A series of studies of alternative concepts and

configuration are now being performed by contractors to define the final NOSS design. Elements under consideration in these concept

studies include the optimum use and deployment

of ground systems (including the location of the

primary processing facility) and the methods to

accomplish a 5-year systems lifetime having a

greater than 95-percent availability. The selection of the orbit and sensors, fixed prior to initiation of these studies, will not be part of the alternative concepts to be evaluated. 8

Figure 17 illustrates the NASA/Goddard

Space Flight Center conception of the NOSS

—. —-——

8(J. S. Department of Ck~mmerce, National Aeronautics an~t Sl)a( c

Administration, Department of Defense, J\’()(s.s> ,%’(lltorl(Il ()(K1 ?)/(

.’jatcllitc .syT/cIn, Washington, D. C., Mar. 23, 1979.

Figure 17.—Goddard Concept of NOSS Spacecraft

SOURCE National Aeronautics and Space ArtmlnistratIon
130 ● Technology and Oceanography

spacecraft. The spacecraft sensors and the shuttle

launch and retrieval are considered part of this

package.

The basic elements of the ground segment,

shown in figures 18 and 19, will include system

control, data processing, and distribution. System control is where all major spacecraft and

data decisions are made and where complete information on the status of the entire system is

available.

An important functional part of the ground

system is the ability to perform near-real-time

processing. Such processing of raw NOSS data

will take place initially in the primary processing

facility, which will:

● ingest raw output data from all sensors and

tracking aids, such as positioning and timing

information, and engineering data important to sensor calibrations (level O);

Figure 18.—NOSS Functional Diagram

. create preprocessed sensor data records

(level I); and

● create geophysical data records (level II).

The computer programs (algorithm specifications) necessary to convert the raw sensor data to

geophysical quantities such as windspeed, waveheights, and surface temperatures will be provided by the Government to the mission contractor who will operate the primary processing

facility. Distribution of level I and II NOSS data

from the primary processing facility will be

restricted to the primary users — NOAA and

Navy. Further data dissemination will be implemented by NOAA, but is not designated as

part of the NOSS program per se.

From Navy and NOAA, NOSS outputs will

then be sent to facilities for storage and for further processing and distribution (respectively

level III and IV). The archival subsystem will be

responsible for the storage, production, and

maintenance of all data and data products and

for a current data directory.

SOURCE National Aeronautics and Space Administrat!on

NOSS Status

Planning for NOSS began in the fall of 1977

when NASA, Navy, and NOAA met to discuss

the need for operational remote sensing of the

ocean environment. These three groups formed a

triagency program management group to which

there have been few changes in composition and

structure since its inception. When this structure

was originally conceived, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) continued its Seasat role as project

manager, however, this assignment was shifted

by NASA management in early 1979 to the Goddard Space Flight Center because of the Center’s

operational experience and involvement with the

Tires weather satellites.

The following is a brief listing of NOSS program milestones that have already occurred:

1.

2.

3.

January 1978: program structure established.

March 2978: objectives defined and approved.

April-June 1978: NOSS working group in

place at JPL, conducting feasibility analyses.
Ch. 4—Selected National Programs ● 131

Figure 19.—NOSS End-to-End System

NOSS A

spacecraft

Civil

final

users

/ White Sand -

receiving NOSS Kln A A ------ A

%

final

- outpu t

to

\ users

Ivwn n

primary site ground

system DOD

users

SOURCE National Aeronautics and Space Admlnlstratlon

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

/ /

- / (Communications )

June 2978: study results presented to steering committee.

July-September 1978: revisions to and finalization of four-volume set of study

results; synthetic aperture radar removed

from NOSS payload.

March 1979: Goddard Space Flight Center

chosen as lead NASA center for NOSS.

August 1979: release of Request for Proposal (RFP) to begin a major procurement

for the total NOSS.

January 1980: six contractors responded to

the NOSS’ RFP to perform concept-definition studies.

August 2980: four contractors selected for

concept definition.

A total systems procurement for NOSS is proceeding within the three funding agencies. The

.

primary

users \

general OMB policy that has been applied to

NOSS procurement is to contract for missions,

not equipment, thereby encouraging innovation

and conceptual competition to promote exploration of alternative flight and ground systems that

will be compatible with Government-furnished

sensors. The major objective of this type of procurement is to foster competition between concepts throughout the entire acquisition process,

ensuring that a range of appropriate tradeoffs of

performance, cost, risk, and schedule are considered.

Needs and objectives require a mission contractor to:

● furnish a NOSS flight segment, except for

sensors, including satellite systems and

spaceshuttle interface and checkout system;
132 ● Technology and Oceanography

●

●

●

furnish a NOSS ground segment from communications interface to primary users;

provide overall systems operation for 1 year;

and

furnish plans for the following 4 years of

operation.

Original plans called for a total systems procurement for NOSS to be initiated during 1981

and a contractor selected by 1982.

Concurrent with the main contractor’s effort,

procurement of the four NOSS sensors would begin. NOSS sensors will be provided as Government-furnished equipment to the NOSS contractor selected. Three of the four sensors, ALT,

CZCS, and SCATT, will be sole-source procurements because they are nearly identical to

the Seasat and Nimbus instruments and they are

being purchased from the same contractors.

LAMMR, the longest lead-time sensor, will be

competitively procured.

The program milestones that follow the concept-definition studies span 10 years: 5 years until

the launch of the first satellite system and 5 years

of planned system operation.

Analysis of NOSS Program

At present, satellites appear to be a promising,

but limited, research tool for oceanography.

Because past oceanic satellite observations have

been inconsistent in quality and inadequate in

coverage, the merged, high-quality oceanic data

sets with long-time histories required for some

research are deficient. The measurement capabilities to be provided by NOSS will only partially

solve this problem.

Measurement Goals and

Expected Performance

The performance goals and present estimates

of system capability for NOSS are shown in table

33. NOSS will meet many but not all of the stated

goals that were established as long-range goals

for an operational system. Some of the goals will

require multiple satellites performing simultaneously in complementary orbits to achieve the

temporal coverage indicated, as well as sensor

technology advances to achieve the accuracies

noted.

Based on the Seasat-A and Nimbus-7 results,

NOSS capabilities appear to be reasonable and

achievable, with the possible exception of

LAMMR performance. This sensor has not yet

demonstrated its capability. Figures 20 through

23 describe the performance and capabilities of

each NOSS sensor.

System/Mission Design. –The potential contribution of NOSS to operational needs is significant. The contribution to research will depend

on many factors. NASA has concluded that no

single system can satisfy all the requirements for

satellite oceanography. Combining data from

various satellites with in situ data will be necessary. To handle data from both operational and

research satellite systems as well as from many

other stations will require a cooperative program

with participation from the oceanographic community and NOAA. More than just archival services will be required. The data management system must be capable of extracting and combining data from several sources, thus preventing a

possible problem in data handling and formatting in addition to requiring funding for satellite

hardware.

A concern of the oceanographic research community and commercial users is that NOSS may

be the only oceanographic satellite authorized as

a new start in this decade. The research payload

for NOSS has not been defined at this time. The

academic community has some concern that a

loss of research payload will result from inflationary costs and weight-budget overruns during

NOSS program development. Research needs

that require hardware systems other than NOSS

may not be met until the 1990’s. Two major

experiments — e.g., the Ice and Climate Experiment (ICEX) and the Topography Experiment

(TOPEX), that require new hardware or platforms have been proposed by NASA and the research community, but budgets for these experiments have not been submitted to Congress for

authorization.

ICEX Science Applications Working Group

was established in February 1979 to consider

research needs for the mid- 1980’s in satellite sens-
Ch. 4—Selected National Programs . 133

Table 33.—NOSS Operational Geophysical Measurements

Goals Expected NOSS system capability

Parameter Accuracy Resolution Accuracy Resolution Instrument

Wind

Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2m/s 25km +/- 2m/s or +/- 10% 17km LAMMR

Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +/- 2m/s or +/- 10% 50km SCATT

Speed (Nadir only). . . . . . . . . . +/- 2m/s or +/-10% 12km ALT

Direction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10° 50km +/- 20 50km SCATT

Sea-surface temperature

Global. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 c 25km +/- 1 .5” c 25km LAMMR

Local. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5° c IOkm * 2.00 c 1.Okm Czcslll

Waves (sea state)

Significant wave height . . . . . 0.3m 25km +/- 0.5m or 10% IOkm ALT

Direction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10° 25km — — —

Ice

Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150/0 20km & 150/0 9km LAMMR

Thickness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2m 50km 2 2m 9km LAMMR

Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New, 1st yr, multiyear 20km 1st yr, multiyear 9km LAMM R

Sheet height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5m+/-2m change IOkm +/- 2m change 10km ALT

Water-mass definition

Chlorophyll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Within factor of 2 0.4km Within factor of 2 1.Okm CZCS/ll

Turbidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Low, medium, high 0.4km Within factor of 2 1.Okm Czcs/ll

Horizontal surface currents

Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5cm/s 20km +/- 15cm/s 50km ALT

Direction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10° 20km +/- 20° 50km ALT

SOURCE: Off Ice of Technology Assessment

ing of ice parameters for ice processes research,

climate studies, resource extraction, and polar

ocean operations. The study group responded

with a satellite concept similar to NOSS that

would be flown in a polar orbit within 30 of the

pole. The satellite system would include special

altimetry and radar systems to map ice elevation

as well as telemetry links for locating and transmitting buoy data. It is not clear yet whether

NASA will propose a new start for ICEX or will

try to accommodate these needs in an operational

NOSS.

TOPEX is an experimental spacecraft concept

that is being developed to determine global

geostrophic (density balancing) circulation of the

oceans. NOSS will not be capable of providing

the proper altimetry coverage from a Sun-synchronous orbit to perform the precision oceansurface topography needed for TOPEX. To obtain accurate orbit and geoid information required for making precision altimetry measurements, TOPEX may use an orbit inclination

(105 0 to 1150, similar to that of Seasat. TOPEX

is being proposed as a new start in fiscal year

1983 for launch in fiscal year 1986 by NASA.9

Orbit Selection Tradeoffs. –A report prepared by NOSS’ program office in August 1980

details how the satellite orbit was selected. The

analysis was based on each funding agency’s

stated needs or measurement goals (as shown in

table 33) and on the requirements of the four

basic sensors selected. The analysis does not consider major variations and deep-ocean circulation measurements, nor does it consider any

alternatives in sensor complement.

NOSS’ orbit was selected on the basis of operational user needs (the Federal TriAgency

Team), with secondary consideration for other

scientific research and commercial applications.

The need for a Sun-synchronous orbit for NOSS

—.

‘National Aeronaut ics and Space Adm inistrat ion, Occa ttic PTOC

csscs Progm m Stat M Report Fjscol k’eor 1980, Washington, D. C.,

July 1980.

l’JNat iona ] Aeronautic-s and Space Adm i n ist rd t ion, I\r(I//{)tt(l/

OcMntc Satelltt(~ .T>ftem (.%’0.7S) Orbtt S1’icctlcjn arl(i Ctjlvragc

Stucfy Report, Washington, DC., Aug. 14, 1980.
134 . Technology and Oceanography

Figure 20.– NOSS Altimeter

The NOSS altimeter (ALT) is a short-pulse, fixed-beam active microwave sensor that operates at

13.5 GHz. It makes precision measurements of significant waveheight in the range 1-20m. ALT

surface topography data can be processed to derive ocean-surface current and icesheet height

along the satellite ground track.

Predicted altimeter capability

Parameter Range Accuracy Resolution

Satellite altitude 700km +/- 15km 10cm —

Ocean waveheight 1 to 20m 0.5m < 10km

Surface currents 15 to 250cm/s 15cm/s < 10km

O to 3600 20”

Waveheight measurement

SOURCE. National Aeronautics and Space Admlnlstratlon

was partially driven by the requirement for a

CZCS. CZCS is the one sensor that can operate

only in visible-light bands and thus requires a

Sun-synchronous orbit (97 0 to 990 inclinations).

Other NOSS sensors do not require a Sun-synchronous orbit because they use all-weather

microwave radiometers. The NOSS ALT, for instance, works best in orbit inclinations that improve geodetic information (66 0 to 1080, by perFoot print

mitting north-south and east-west component

derivations.

Data taken in a Sun-synchronous orbit will not

have a diurnal variation because only conditions

at a single local time will be observed. This result

can be good or bad depending on the user’s point

of view. Moreover, this orbit renders some of the

sensors less than optimally effective. In coastal
Ch. 4—Selected National Programs 135

Figure 21.–NOSS Coastal Zone Color Scanner/2 (CZCS/2)

The purpose of the CZCS/2 is to measure the abundance or density of chlorophyll at or near

the sea surface. This will reveal the abundance of phytoplankton or planktonic plants which

contain chlorophyll and are at the bottom of the oceanic food chain. The CZCS/2 maps the

location and measures the density of the plankton on a temporal or time scale, providing information to marine biologists and the fishing industry.

Additional objectives of the CZCS/2 are the measurement of sediment in coastal waters, diffuse attenuation coefficient, and the measurement of sea-surface temperature. The

temperature measurements can detect cold water upwelling, which frequently provides the

nutrient necessary for plankton “blooms.”

Sea-surface temp.

Local

Water-mass definition

Chlorophyll

Diffuse attenuation

Coefficient (K)

Predicted NOSS system capability

Sensitivity Range Accuracy

1.00 c – 2 to 35° c 2.0° c

10% (mg/m3) 0.1 to IOOmg/m3 Within factor of 2

O. Olin-’ O to 6m-1 Within factor of 2

NASA

Resolution

0.8km

0.8km

0.8km

1200km ‘

-

0.6km-

\ /

\

SOURCE National Aeronautics and Space Administration

areas, the signal strength will be marginal. The ments will be effectively used to support its opersignal bandwidth of chlorophyll and sediment ational programs.

measurements by CZCS overlap causing interpretation difficulties. Moreover, algorithms to map Selection of a Sun-synchronous orbit has some

concentrations of chlorophyll are not yet fully de- benefits, however, NOSS will require less timeveloped. Therefore, even if the concentrations correction of data to aline with the format of

can be measured, NOAA, the primary user of the meteorological data products from both Navy

data, has not demonstrated how the measure- and NOAA because it will use the same standard
136 ● Technology and Oceanography

Figure 22.–NOSS Large Antenna Multifrequency Microwave Radiometer (LAMMR)

The LAMMR is a passive multichannel microwave radiometer that provides high-resolution

Parameter

Sea-surface temp.

Sea-surface temp.

Oceanic windspeed

Sea-ice coverage

radiometric brightness temperature maps of the Earth’s surface

frequencies in verical and horizontal polarization.

Predicted LAMMR capability

Range

– 2 to 35° c

– 2 to 35° c

O to 50m/s

o to 1000/0

New to multiyear

Water vapor-integrated

Atmosphere water-vapor content

Liquid water

O to 6gms/cm2

O to 100mg/cm2

and atmosphere at multiple

Accuracy Resolution

1 .5° c 25km

2.5° C 16km

2m/s 20km

15 ”/0 9km

New, 1 yr.,

multiyear.

0.2gm/cm 2

9km

4mg/cm2

9km

f

50” conical Incidence

angle to surface

21.3 and 36.5 GHz channels

\

SOURCE National Aeronautics and Space Admlnlstratlon

worldwide reference based on Greenwich Mean

Time. Another benefit is that the near-polar

NOSS orbit ensures better ice coverage than does

a low-inclination orbit similar to that of Seasat.

Technology Readiness/Sensors. –The effectiveness of the entire NOSS depends substantially

on the capability of the sensors to produce accurate and reliable oceanic measurements. In general, the sensor technology is well-founded, with

a few exceptions.

Of the four primary sensors on the NOSS

spacecraft, LAMMR is classed as a major new

sensor development, while the three remaining

sensors are modifications of prototype sensors

that were flown either on Seasat-A or o n

Nimbus-7. Thus, LAMMR does not have a concrete performance history at the same level as

that of the other NOSS sensors. It is an improved

version of the scanning microwave radiometer on

Seasat and Nimbus that provided data with up to

1.50 C accuracy.
Ch. 4—Selected National Programs . 137

Figure 23.–NOSS Scatterometer (SCATT)

The NOSS Scatterometer (SCATT) is a long-pulse scanning active microwave radar at 13 to 14

GHz that provides measurements of radar backscatter coefficient from which the synoptic

scale, ocean-surface vector winds are inferred. The physical basis for this technique is the

Bragg scattering of microwaves from centimeter length capillary ocean waves.

Predicted NOSS/SCATT capability

Horizontal

Wind Sensitivity Range Accuracy resolution

/

Speed 1.5m/s O to 50m/s 2m/s 50km

&J+

Direction 200 0° to 360° 20o

50km

,4

?

\ \ Fan beams

\ ‘ \

sites

c

SOURCE Nallonal Aeronautics and Space Admlnlstratlon

The synthetic aperture radar (SAR) was removed from the NOSS program by NASA in the

fall of 1978. The reasons given for its removal

were that its high data rate and experimental

nature prevented its operational use and that its

cost would be too high. Recently, completion of

Seasat studies have shown that while resolution of

the open-ocean data from the SAR is good, lack

of sea-truth and inadequate position information

make it very difficult to interpret SAR output.

Those who disagree with the agency decision to

shelve SAR point out that all of these problems

could be solved. Thus, although NASA has indicated research needs for an ocean-observing SAR

sensor in a near-polar orbit, it stresses that improved interpretation of SAR imagery and nearreal-time data distribution would be prerequifor SAR use. SAR is proposed as part of

. . .

NASA’s 15-year objectives and may eventually be

launched in a civilian oceanographic satellite.

Recent development has indicated that the use

of multiple sensors, possibly on multiple satellites, to estimate one parameter could substantially improve the capability of remote-sensing

systems. Significant improvement of some measurements, such as sea-surface temperature, will

require in situ measurements in conjunction with

satellite measurements.

Technology Readiness/Ground System. –

The most important concern about NOSS’

ground system is the acquisition, management,

and distribution of the acquired data. The processing and communication transfer and the ar-
138 ● Technology and Oceanography

chiving of data is not limited by technology.

NOSS civilian-user data distribution plans are

currently being developed by NOAA.

Because of the concerns of many potential satellite data users, NOAA is now planning for the

development of a data system to process and handle NOSS data for end-users, both inside and

outside of the Federal agencies. This system will

not be part of NOSS’ program as such, but will

be designed to make NOSS measurements widely

available and to produce useful products for

Government research labs, universities, private

industry, and the oceanographic community in

general.

The two general classes of distribution systems

that may be utilized are systems of distribution to

standard user terminals and of distribution to

other computer installations. One class is that of

data distribution to NOSS user terminals via

standard dial-up or permanently connected commercial telecommunications services. The second

class of data distribution is a computer-to-computer service that can be tailored to support the

transfer of data between NOAA and end-user

computer installations.

The Navy Fleet Numerical Oceanography

Center (FNOC) in Monterey, Calif., is making

progress with the problem of processing and distributing oceanic data from satellites that will be

directly transferrable to the NOSS program.

FNOC along with NASA operates a satellite data

distribution system demonstration project for

commercial users in accordance with a memorandum of agreement between NASA and the

Department of Defense. Likewise, NOAA is

handling sea-surface temperature data from

Tiros-N. The amount and complexity of the

coded NOSS datastream, however, require a

much bigger processing effort than that of any

current effort. This aspect of the NOSS program

will be the responsibility of NOAA.

Nearly two decades of environmental satellite

missions and technology has produced some valuable data. However, information of value to

many users has been difficult, if not impossible,

to obtain in the past. In the regional NOSS user

conferences conducted by NOAA, users expressed the opinion that a major success for the

NOSS program may lie not in creating NOSS,

but rather in creating a national oceanic data

system with compatible data formats from

various stations.

NASA has also identified the high-priority

need for an oceanic data system, not now part of

the NOSS program, that could foster research

associated with remotely sensed parameters from

many data sources, including NOSS, Seasat,

Nimbus, Tiros, and GOES. Data would be far

more useful and usable by scientific and commercial users if it were processed in both a near-realtime as well as a retrospective mode, with data

products and data links available on-line from a

computer rather than through hard copy only.
Ch. 4—Selected National Programs ● 139

FISHERIES AND LIVING RESOURCES

RESEARCH PROGRAM

The Federal Government has an ongoing, sizable investment in programs and supporting

technology designed to study and manage living

marine resources. The technology required for

the programs is unique and is a mixture of conventional systems which have been in use for a

long time and new developments which could significantly advance future research.

OTA’s study of both programs and technology

includes a comprehensive analysis of marine

fishery management, fishery research, and stock

assessment. In addition, it covers specific problems associated with the krill fishery* in the Antarctic

11 and with the implementation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MM PA) of 1974.

OTA study highlights are presented here,

more detailed information is available in the

complete study version, being issued by OTA as a

working paper. 12

The Fishery Conservation and

Management Act

Most of the coastal countries of the world have

asserted authority over fisheries within a 200-

mile-wide exclusive economic zone bordering

their coasts. This action was taken in the United

States by means of Public Law 94-265, The Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA)

of 1976.13 Under FCMA, which became effective

—.——

* Krill are shrimp-like crustaceans, 4- to 6-cm long, which are

widely distributed around Anarctica and inhabit an area about

5,300,000 square nautical miles. In contrast, the U.S. Continental

Shelf fishing area is about 800,000 square miles. In part of the area,

krill form dense aggregates called “super swarms, ” which are the object of the fishery. Krill are the major food source for baleen whales

and other marine mammals, fish, and birds in the region.

1‘Takeyuki Doi, “1’akehiko Kawakami, “The Estimation of Krill

Abundance in the Antarctic by Analysis of Echogram, ” B/omass

2(5): 1.11, 1980,

1 Zco]]ege of Fisheries of the University of Washington, OTA

Working Paper on “Fishery Research Technology, ” including

manuscripts from a conference, Seattle, Wash., Apr. 21.24, 1980.

13u s Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atrnos- . .

pheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 7’/te

Lrntted States Marine F~shery Resource, Marmap Contribution No,

f, John P. Wise (cd, ) (Washington, DC.: U.S. Government Print.

ing Office, 1 974).

March 1, 1977, a clear Federal authority was established over a fishery conservation zone defined

as the area between the outer limit of State

authority (usually 3 miles) and 200 miles from the

coast. Foreign fishing is now allowed in the zone

only under permit and in accordance with management plans. To monitor compliance with the

Act, observers are often placed onboard foreign

vessels, and frequent radio reports of foreign

catches are gathered. However, to what extent

the United States should allow foreign fishing inside its 200-mile zone continues to be a subject of

debate, and recent proposed legislation calls for

gradually phasing out foreign fishing in the U.S.

200-mile zone.

With FCMA, the United States brought under

its management about 10 percent of the conventional ocean fishery resources of the world. This

decision caused a dramatic increase in U.S. commercial catches that had remained about level

for the preceding three decades. In 1970, for instance, the world commercial catch totaled 59.7

million tonnes; 7.4 million tonnes of this amount

were caught within the U.S. 200-mile coastal

zone 1imit by both U.S. and foreign fishermen.

The U.S. commercial catch alone in 1970 was 2.9

million tonnes. 15 By 1980 the U.S. catch had increased to 3.5 million tonnes, reflecting both the

restraints placed on foreign fishing and the increased opportunities for U.S. fishermen to seek

stocks which had been almost exclusively fished

by foreign fishermen. 16

In addition to extending U.S. fishing opportunities, FCMA established principles of fishery

management and a system of Regional Fishery

Management Councils to meet the demand for

‘*U.S. Congress, Senate, A merr’can Fi.shertes Promotion Act ,

H. R. 7039, 96th Cong., 2d sess, (Washington, DC.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980).

i 5u, s, Department of Commerce , National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Nat ional M a rine Fisheries Service, The

lrntted States Marine Fishey Resource, Marmap Contrthution A/o.

J, John P. Wise (cd. ) (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1 974).

16U s Department of Commerce, Nat iona ] Oceanic and .4trnos -

pheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fzsherzes

f)fthe United States, 1979, April 1980.
140 ● Technology and Oceanography

better information on which to base the management of both U.S. and foreign fisheries. This demand was the result of research findings that previous management was not as effective as possible. The Act required the regional councils to

develop management plans according to the following requirements:

●

●

●

●

●

Each fishery in the United States that comes

under the purview of the law must be managed for optimum yield, defined as that

amount of fish “which will provide the

greatest overall benefit to the Nation, with

particular reference to food production and

recreational opportunities. ”

Optimum yield must be calculated by first

calculating maximum sustainable yield and

then modifying that figure by “. . . any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor. ”

Planning for the attainment of optimum

yield must be specified in a fishery management plan.

Fishery management plans must contain:

— specifications of conservation and management measures applicable to the fishery;

— a description of the fishery, including

number of vessels, type and quantity of

gear, the species of fish involved and their

location, management costs, actual and

potential revenues from the fishery, recreational interests, and extent of foreign

fishing and Indian treaty fishing rights;

— an analysis of present and probable conditions of maximum sustainable yield and

opt i mum yield and a summary of information to make such a specification;

— the capacity of U.S. fishing vessels; and

— various specific data from the fishery.

The acceptability of a plan must be tested

against national standards that specify that

the plan be consistent with:

–preventing overfishing while sustaining

optimum yield;

— using the best scientific information available;

— management of stocks throughout their

ranges and in close coordination with interrelated stocks;

— conservation and management measures

that promote efficiency in utilization of

fish;

— conservation and management measures

that consider variations and contingencies

among fisheries, fisheries resources, and

catches; and

— conservation and management measures

that minimize costs and prevent duplication.

Fishery Management

Prior to FCMA, any management of domestic

U.S. fisheries was primarily handled by the

States. Few of these States had the data on offshore stocks needed to support management of

these fisheries, and yield concepts were not widely

accepted. A review in the early 1970’s of U.S.

ocean fishery resources and management revealed that many of the 31 most important fish

species or species groups, most of which comprised many stocks, were being managed inadequately. Of those groups that were being managed, few were managed with a yield objective,

with the exception of those subject to an international agreement.

Now, the task of managing the domestic ocean

fisheries is a very large one. The fishing area adjacent to the United States consists of the Outer

Continental Shelf and the upper part of the continental slope out to a depth of 300 fathoms. This

area, almost all of which is within the 200-mile

zone, amounts to about 800,000-square nautical

miles, or an equivalent of about 30 percent of the

land area of the United States.

A review that was made just after FCMA was

passed listed species that were thought to be overfished or in danger of being overfished in the

U.S. fishing area. Those species endangered primarily by foreign fishing totaled 15; by a combination of foreign and domestic fishing, 12; and

by domestic fishing alone, 7.17

— [ 7U s ~ep~~t~entof Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmos -

. .

pht=ric Administration, Re@rt to the Congress on Ocean Pollutton,

Olvrftshing, and Offshore Lk~vlopment, Jul>l 1974 through June

1976, 1976.
Ch. 4—Selected National Programs . 141

The development of fishery management plans

to prevent such overfishing is a lengthy process,

requiring from 14 to 32 months to complete.18 If

a Fishery Management Council is amending a

previous plan –and amendments of at least a

minor nature may be expected annually — it is

necessary to restart part or evaluate all of the

planning process. In the plans not only the requirements of FCMA must be met but also those

of the Endangered Species Act, the National

Environmental Policy Act, MMPA, the Coastal

Zone Management Act, and various othe r

administrative directives.

Not the least of the problems of developing the

management plans is the requirement for information based on research. Special demands

on the research base occur when the councils consider all of the alternative regulations of quota,

gear, area, season, and size of fish. A further demand is the preparation of the environmental

impact statement required for each fishery management plan under the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1973. As a result, the 76 plans that

were in some stage of development by the end of

1979, only 12 were implemented by the end of

1980, and of these, 7 are plans that involved

foreign fishing. 19 Furthermore, each plan that

has been implemented is subject to annual review

and revision, a lengthy process that will probably

continue.

Fishery Research and

Stock Assessment

Much fishery research is directed at the problems of managing fisheries, of managing human

use of the aquatic environment in which fish live,

and of growing fish as a domesticated crop. Now,

because of the present capability of overfishing

almost any valuable and unmanaged fishery resource, the demand for research to guide management decisions is increasing. Such research includes biological, physical, chemical, mathematI HU, s. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, N’ational Marine Fisheries !%wice, operattc)nci [ G u~drltrl e fc) r ! h[’ Ftshery .Vla nagern en! Plan Prc~ccss, 1979.

I QU, s, ~epa r[mcnt of commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, council

memorandum, VOI. 3, No. 12, December 1979.

Phofo credlf Naf/ona/ Ocean/c and Afmospher/c Adm/n/straf/on

Monitoring of commercial catches is an important factor

in fishery stock assessment and in developing

fishery management plans

ical, oceanographic, economic, and other studies

as may be necessary.

Many management successes have occurred

with fish stocks that were top predators in their

ecological niche or with stocks that did not have a

strong interaction with other stocks. In such cases

if the fishery harvests a good portion of the stock

each year, the relationship between the size of the

stock and the amount of fishing is satisfactorily

predictable. With stocks that are major prey species, fishing may cause only a minor part of the

mortality and have an unpredictable relationship

to the size of the stock. This assumption is also

true of stocks that are short-lived and subject to

highly variable survival because of environmental

changes.

Particularly important to successful management is fishery stock assessment that includes

studies that describe the stocks, assess their abundance, and measure the impact of the fishery on

them. Out of a total research budget of about

$44 million in fiscal year 1979, the National
142 ● Technology and Oceanography

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) allocated about

$32 million to such stock assessment activities.

Added to this was about $10 million for the

operation of the fishery research vessels by the

National Ocean Survey in support of the stock

assessment activity. These amounts have probably not changed much in fiscal year 1980 or fiscal

year 1981 except for adjustments for inflation. 20

To assess a fishery stock, the stock must first be

defined. A stock, defined in FCMA as “a species,

subspecies, geographic grouping, or other category of fish capable of management as a unit, ” is

ideally an intermingling group of one species, but

many fisheries catch mixed species, and it is the

activity of a fishery that must be managed.

After being defined, the stock is described

according to where it lives, where it migrates; if

and how it schools; when, where, and how it

spawns; how fast it grows; how old it gets; and

other aspects of its biology. Such information

provides a base for management plans and estimates of abundance. Given the abundance and

the amount of fishing effort over a period of

time, it is possible to estimate the mortality rate.

Given the growth rate, it is possible to estimate

not only the effects of fishing on the stock, but

also the level of sustainable yield.

Assessing fish stocks involves evaluating fish at

all growth stages. Especially critical to the size of

a fish stock is the environment of larvae. Normally, fish eggs are produced by the hundreds of

thousands or millions by each female, and the

larvae have a high mortality rate. Because larvae

of most commercial species are freely drifting

animals only 4- to 7-mm long (about 1/4 inch),

measuring deviations from the norm that will

eventually change the size of the stock is exceedingly difficult.

Many other variables also make measuring fish

stocks a challenging task. Most fish are distributed in a patchy way over wide areas and migrate seasonally between spawning and feeding

grounds. Many behave differently in different

hours or seasons. Since the fish population can

—

ZOU ,s, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Stock

Assessment A cttz~ties W’tthtn the Nati{jnal hfarln~ Ftshert(’s Serrti~e,

June 1980.

vary in size and location as well as from human

influences, it is hard to locate and count fish, and

it is hard to separate human influences from

natural variability. Moreover, all fish change in

their vulnerability to fishing or sampling gear as

they grow from larvae through the juvenile stage

to adults. Any mesh in a net will let small animals

go through, and no net can be pulled fast enough

to capture all of the swiftest and largest fish. No

fishing gear is completely nonselective, no sample.

can be completely unbiased.

A consequence of the complexity of these variables is that stock assessment depends not only on

rigorous methods, but also on experience and

judgment. Predicting the abundance of fish is, in

some ways like predicting the weather, political

elections, or other mercurial events. The reliability of the prediction is a function of the time

between the collection of data and the predicted

event.

The basic data for predicting yields must include an estimate of the abundance of the stock

and the capability of the fishery to catch it.

Estimates of both can be obtained from the

fishery data and can be quite accurate for the

older age groups in the catches. But the fishery

has no prior experience with the age group just

being recruited to the fishery, and this group may

be a large fraction of the stock. A prediction of

the abundance of the recruit group must be made

from known relationships and measurable environmental factors, both of which can be highly

variable. Data from the catches of special nets

used by research vessels or from the spawnerrecruit relationship must be used in predicting

the fishery catch. Direct measurements of the

ratio of recruits to adult fish have been made by

acoustics for one species, but it is not clear that

such research work could be developed into operational systems by NMFS.

Technology

The validity of the stock assessment also depends on the quality and quantity of basic data.

The most important data source is the fishery

fleet itself. It is vital to the whole management

process to have information on the catch and

fishing effort by time, species, size of fish, area,
Ch. 4—Selected National Programs . 143

and gear. Such information provides not only an

assessment of the capacity of the stock to sustain

the catches, but also an assessment of the capability of the fleet to make the catches.

A complimentary and, in some respects, superior source of information is from surveys by research vessels. Such surveys can provide unique

information through the use of special gear and

by operation in areas not normally fished by the

fleet. The surveys can also provide less biased

samples of abundance and a greater opportunity

for biological studies of the catch. The surveys

are expensive, and they cannot provide the assessment of the capacity of the fleet to make the

catches.

Fishery research vessels must be able to handle

fishing equipment, the fish that are caught, and

oceanographic instruments. Handling large fishing gear such as trawls and seines requires major

structural and power arrangements. Handling

the catch requires deck space for sorting, laboratory space for studying, and storage space. These

requirements mean that other ocean research

vessels are usually ill-suited for fishery research;

although the navigational equipment, laboratory

space, and accommodations may be similar.

The fishery research fleet of nine vessels (with

the recent addition of the Chapman) is operated

for NMFS by the Office of Fleet Operations of the

National Ocean Survey of NOAA. The budget

\

Phofo credit Woods Ho/e Oceanographic /nstItufIon

Scientists bring a sampling net aboard a research vessel.

Fisheries surveys require careful sampling of stocks during

different stages of growth

Photo credit Scr/pps /nsfItuIIon o/ Oceanography

Oceanographers aboard a Scripps research vessel

wash down meter net to concentrate marine organisms

in the cod end

for the operation of the fisheries vessels for fiscal

year 1981 is about $10.2 million, or about onefourth of NOAA’s fleet budget. This sum provides about 2,000 days of sea time. In addition,

NMFS budgets about $2 million for vessel charter

and about $250,000 for operations of small vessels. About 90 percent of the ship time supports

the resource assessment program.

Foreign fishery research vessels have recently

assisted with stock assessment surveys and have

added about 400 sea days to U.S. research-vessel

capability. This activity has continued under

FCMA because it aids in the determination of

catch allocations for foreign nations, but it may
144 • Technology and Oceanography

u

Photo credlf fVatlona/ Ocean/c and Afrnosphenc Adrnmwfrat/on

National Marine Fisheries Service’s 127-ft Chapman

not continue much longer. Table 34 lists actual

and planned ship days for NMFS research for

each ship of NOAA’s fleet and for other vessels.

Table 35 shows the breakdown of NOAA fleetsupport costs by vessel and category for fisheries

research in fiscal year 1981.

A method of assessment that is rapidly increasing in effectiveness is acoustic remote sensing

from survey ships. Instruments with satisfactory

range, sensitivity, and stability have been developed to detect fish to within 1 km from a ship.

The instruments cannot identify fish by species,

Table 34.—NMFS Research Sea Days Support—

Fiscal Years 1979-81

Source

NOAA fleet

Albatross IV. . . . . . . . . .

Delaware Il. . . . . . . . . . .

Oregon II . . . . . . . . . . . .

Jordan . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cromwell. . . . . . . . . . . .

Freeman . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cobb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Murre II . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapman. . . . . . . . . . . .

Kelez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Charter vessels. . . . . . . .

Foreign ships . . . . . .

Program boats . . . . . . . .

Other a 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1979

213

246

250

202

242

138

166

196

145

—

—

49

471

400

400

100

1980

(projected) —

240

240

235

232

250

130

166

189

140

100

30

30

700

450

400

130

1981

(estimated)

250

250

250

250

250

130

166

—

140

250

30

30

700

450

400

150

except in certain cases, nor can they assess the

abundance of fish very close to the ocean bottom

or to the ocean surface. Although acoustic methods have not been widely applied to fishery management problems, such applications are advocated by those in academia and in industry who

have studied the problem .21 One benefit of effective acoustic techniques over net-sampling techniques would be a reduction in ship time. It may

thus be desirable to invest in such technology

development if its benefits appear substantial.

The technology development work could be

greatly enhanced by encouraging technology

transfer from agencies like Navy, which uses

acoustics extensively for different problems.

Locating fish through aircraft or satellite

observations of ocean-surface conditions such as

temperature, currents, salinity, or chlorophyll

(which may indicate productivity) has been useful

occasionally for locating surface fish, especially

certain tunas that follow productive ocean currents or temperature boundaries. This method is

not effective for the many fish that live below the

surface where conditions are more unpredictable

and are different from surface conditions.

Another disadvantage is that coastal zones which

contain most fisheries also have the most cloud

cover, a phenomenon that hinders the effectiveness of many satellite sensors.

The usefulness of satellite or aircraft observations of ocean-surface conditions for the purpose

of predicting the abundance of a stock has yet to

be demonstrated, but such observations are being

used by many researchers as part of their research

on the ocean. These observations are especially

important for providing nearly simultaneous information on the surface conditions over the entire range of a stock.

Future Fishery Research

and Development

Stock assessment research has been driven and

shaped by the needs of the fishery managers. The

major need, as noted previously is for better inTotals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,218 3,662 3,696

aDonated commercial vessel, research COntraCt. etc

SOURCE. National Marine Flshenes Service

—

ZIU .S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Ocean Acoustic Remote Sensing Workshop, Summary Report, ” VOI. 1, March 1980.
Ch. 4—Selected National Programs ● 145

Table 35.—Cost Estimate for NOAA Fleet Support of FCMA-Related Research— Fiscal Year 1981

(in thousands of dollars)

FCMA’

Maintenance/ Management/ NMFS (MARMAP)

Operations Percent repair overhead total total

Northwest Region

Freeman (52°/0) . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 942 13.1 $ 375 $ 217 $ 1,534 $ 1,335

Chapman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893 12.4 355 205 1,453 1,264

Cobb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382 5.3 151 88 621 540

Murre II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 3.2 91 53 372 324

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,445 34.0 972 563 3,980 3,463

Southwest Region

Cromwell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 880 12.2 349 202 1,431 1,245

Jordan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,046 14.6 417 242 1,705 1,483

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,926 26.8 766 444 3,136 2,728

Northeast Region

Albatross IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,088 15.1 432 250 1,770 1,540

Delaware II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 854 11.9 340 197 1,391 1,210

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,942 27.0 772 447 3,161 2,750

Southeast Region

Oregon Il. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876 12.2 349 202 1,427 1,241

Grand total. . . . . . . . . . . . . $7,189 100.0 $2,859 $1,656 $11,704 * $10,182

aFcMA (MARMAP) Sea d’~s ‘mountedto 87 percent of all NOAA fleet support for NMFs research in fiscal Year 1979

SOURCE National Marine Fisheries Service

formation on a large number of stocks that have

not been managed as rigorously as required

under FCMA. This need for information is ongoing since management plans are reviewed and

changed annually. It is an extraordinarily complex need because each stock varies significantly.

Fishery research contributes not only to Federal management, but also to fishery development.

FCMA promotes domestic, commercial, and recreational fishing and encourages the development of fisheries, such as that of bottomfish off

Alaska, which are currently underutilized by

U.S. fishermen.

The stock assessment information, when suitably presented as forecasts, provides the fishing

community with indispensable information on

the quantity of each stock that may be caught

and on the amount of fishing that the stock can

tolerate without depletion. In addition, the

observations of foreign fishing can provide similar information on the stocks not being fished by

U.S. fishermen. Such information is vital for

planning the construction and operation of fishing vessels and processing plants.

Krill Research

Many distant-water fishing nations have shown

great interest in Antarctic krill as a major potential source of food for animal and human populations because of its wide distribution, its abundance, and its accessibility, Other nations, including the United States, are interested in the

key role krill plays in the Antarctic ecosystem.

Because of the speculative nature of information

about krill’s standing biomass, productivity, and

commercial harvest, and because of the issues

surrounding the potential impact on the Antarctic ecosystem of an expanded krill fishery, some

nations argue for caution in proceeding with

commercial development of krill. Under domestic legislation and as party to the Antarctic

Treaty and other international agreements, the

United States shares a scientific and political interest with other nations in promoting scientific

investigations and the conservation and management of krill resources in the southern oceans. 22

?ZU S Department of State, Fz’nal Environmental Im@ct State-

. .

m ent Jhr a Possible Regime Jor Conse ruation for Antarctic Liwt’ng

Marzne Resources, June 1978.
146 . Technology and Oceanography

Conventional fishing technology is well-suited

to exploit krill’s “super swarms. ” Over the years,

improvements in locating and catching techniques have apparently made it possible to take

large catches at moderate costs. The 1979 combined catch was probably over 100,000 tonnes.

Projections show a 1985 commercial harvest of 2-

million to 4-million tonnes, which will not exceed

50 million tonnes by the turn of the century .23

Although krill are believed to be an immense

protein source, U.S. fishermen have not been interested in actively exploiting it. Unlike countries

with large, idle, long-range fishing vessels that

have pushed for exploitation of krill, the United

States does not have such vessels. At present, U.S.

fishermen do not see any economic advantage in

leaving their domestic fishing operations to fish

krill in the Antarctic. The frontrunners of krill

exploitation will probably be the Communist

bloc countries, Japan, and perhaps, ultimately,

Chile,

24 The United States does, however, have

an interest in the key role krill plays in the Antarctic ecosystem. Krill, more than any other

single species of zooplankton in other ocean ecosystems, is an important link between phytoplankton and higher trophic forms. Whales and

other marine mammals, fish, and birds of the

area feed on krill. 25

The Marine Mammal Program

Protection of marine mammals is addressed in

MMPA which declares that stocks of marine

mammals should not fall below a level “which

will result in the maximum productivity of the

population or the species, keeping in mind the

optimum carrying capacity of the habitat and the

health of the ecosystem of which they form a constituent element.” 26 It is difficult not only to —.—

~3D. L. Alverson, “Tug-of-War for the Antarctic Krill, ” Ocean

Development and International i.awJourna/ 8(2): 171-182, 1980.

~4M.A.Mcwhinnie and c. J. Denys, A ntarctzc Marine Liw’ng

Resources With Special Reference to Kri/[, Euphausia Superba:

Assessment OJ Adequacy of Present Know[edgej report submitted to

the National Science Foundation, December 1978.

~bscient ific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), Scientific

Committee on Ocean Research (SCOR), Group of Specialists on

Living Resources of the Southern Ocean, SCOR Working Group 54,

Biological Invest igattorts of Martne Antarctic Systems and Stocks

(Biomass), vol. 1: research proposals, August 1977.

~su .S, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, T h e

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 Annual Report, Apr. 1,

1977 to Mar. 31, 1978.

define this goal scientifically, but also to obtain

enough scientific information about these species

to carry out the provisions of MM PA.

Surveying marine mammal populations is difficult because they combine the inaccessibility of

most fish populations with the variability in

behavior and habitat preference of most terrestrial mammalian species. z7 Surveys often range

over large areas and a number of survey techniques must be designed, each with sufficient

flexibility to adapt to the particular characteristics of individual species. Some species that concentrate seasonally in dense aggregations (California gray whale and northern fur seal) can be

surveyed through efficient sampling devices.

Other species (porpoise and harbor seal) that do

not aggregate to such an extent require largescale surveys to assess their population sizes. Although past survey methods have met with some

success for a limited number of marine mammalian species, much additional research is

needed to develop methodologies capable of

satisfying the requirements of MM PA.

Technology Needs

In addition to the need for improved survey

methodologies for marine mammal research is

the need for development of new technology and

the modification and/or acquisition of current

technology.

Z7L. L. Eberhardt, D. G. Chapman, and J. R. Gilbert, “A Review

of Marine Mammals Census Methods, ” The Journal of WtldltJe

Management, vol. 43, No. 1, January 1979.

Photo credit National Marine fisheries Service

Humpback whale
Ch. 4—Selected National Programs Ž 147

Photo credit Nat/ona/ Mar/ne F/sher/es Serwce

Research on marine mammals has led to development of

tuna seine nets that allow porpoises to escape

Virtually all marine mammal surveys require

some form of observer platform. Since the number of commercial harvesting vessels has been

drastically reduced, a major source of cost-effective platforms has been curtailed. Hence, NMFS

must rely more heavily on its own vessels to conduct marine mammal surveys, thus creating a

serious need for more and better designed survey

ships. Such ships should have long-range capability for operating in remote parts of the world.

They should also be capable of visual searching,

be equipped to gather both passive and active

hydroacoustic data, and be able to accommodate

helicopters which can be used to extend and augment surveys. Finally, for Arctic and Antarctic

work, survey ships must be ice-strengthened. To

date, lack of suitable survey vessels has hampered

the Bowhead Whale and Cetacean Tracking programs in the North Pacific Ocean and in the U.S.

Antarctic Program.

Aircraft are also needed, especially for largescale surveys. As with ships, aircraft must have

long-range capability. To survey porpoises in the

eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, for example,

survey planes are used to search as far as 1,500

nautical miles out to sea. Survey aircraft must be

maneuverable enough to change altitude and

course frequently so that observers can identify

species, obtain more accurate counts, and take

aerial photographs. Lack of suitable aircraft has,

in the past, constrained the Tuna/Porpoise Program in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean and

the Bowhead Whale and Cetacean Tracking programs in the North Pacific Ocean.

In addition to observer platforms, marine

mammal surveys require better use of aerial photography. The value of conventional photography has been established, especially for surveying

large aggregates of animals, and attempts to employ ultraviolet and infrared photographic techniques have met with some success. Research is

needed to improve the accuracy of these techniques and to make them cost effective.

Tracking of radio-equipped animals via aircraft or satellites has not been used to a great

extent in marine mammal surveys. However,

such techniques show considerable promise and

should be addressed by future research.

Finally, updated navigational equipment on

survey vessels and aircraft is needed for marine

mammal surveys. Since many of these surveys are

conducted far from shore, sophisticated navigational equipment is imperative for acquiring accurate distributional information on surveyed

populations.

Analysis of the Fisheries and Living

Resources Research Program

Fishery Management, Research,

and Development

Although FCMA is obviously the beginning of

major changes in fishery management in the

United States, domestic fishery management is as

yet little changed. It will be first necessary to

complete fishery management plans for the many

stocks identified as needing management, a task

difficult to accomplish while keeping the already

implemented plans under annual review and possible amendment. In addition, it is likely that

some stocks, not yet identified as needing management, will at some time be more heavily

fished and will then require management. Other

stocks that are reduced in abundance due to

unknown factors may also have to be brought

under management quickly but workable techniques to deal with this situation are not yet

available.
148 ● Technology and Oceanography

In addition to these longer range developments, improvements must be made in the current implementation of FCMA. These improvements include collecting better data on

biological, social, and economic problems; improving the coordination with the States in

regulations and enforcement; improving public

participation and understanding; and speeding

up the planning process.

Accurate and comprehensive catch data from

U.S. fisheries is not now available, but technology does not appear to be the problem. Rather,

improvements are needed in the institutional

systems that have been established to collect the

data, to verify its accuracy, and to provide

managers with timely and reliable data-history

and forecasts.

Fishery research needs will be met by extending and refining existing theory and technology

to hitherto unmanaged stocks as they are brought

under management. Generally, fishery research

will be relatively routine, directed at monitoring

and prediction. But familiar methods have been

found wanting when applied to some important

bottomfish stocks, which are complex mixtures of

species, and to some very large herring and anchovy stocks. In these instances, a better understanding of the nonfishery factors is more essential and can be gained only by researching the

ecological production processes. When conducted on a scale adequate to measure the environmental and the interspecies relationships,

such research should be expected to be nonroutine, expensive, and lengthy.

Technology

It does not appear that any significant changes

in the fishery research fleet will be necessary in

the near future. However, maintenance and upgrading of ship equipment and instrumentation

will be important if fishery research capabilities

are to be maintained. Also, the present trend

toward using more charter vessels to augment the

Government fleet may be cost effective in the

future. Many commercial fishing vessels have

very modern equipment and can be chartered for

research surveys during slack seasons.

There are some technology needs that accompany the development of new fisheries to ensure

the safety and good quality of new products.

Those species that are unfamiliar to U.S. fishermen require different handling and processing

procedures. For example, many of these species

are small and require different processing machinery and almost all must be prepared in a

form suitable for different and highly competitive markets. The successful development of these

resources by the United States will require very

different technology for fishing and processing

than that for the existing fisheries. Such technological development depends heavily on information about flesh quality and its chemistry, toxins,

deteriorative processes, and on many other laboratory studies.

Krill Research

At this time, research on Antarctic krill is basic

and exploratory rather than routine assessment.

Ongoing multinational krill research efforts include surveys and explorations by the Soviets,

Japanese , Poles, West Germans, and Chileans.

The United States has not done as much scientific

research on krill as these countries have, but

could begin by sending more scientists on foreign

research vessels. Long-term research programs

should be developed, and existing international

collaboration in krill research should be further

expanded and intensified. Methods of survey

techniques, data collection, evaluation, and reporting need to be developed and standardized.

This involves collecting comprehensive catchand-effort statistics and reporting them to the appropriate international agency.

For some purposes better results could be obtained by coordinating research programs with

the commercial fisheries on krill than by deploying an independent krill assessment research

vessel and program. NOAA claims that while it

would be beneficial to coordinate research with

commercial vessels to assess krill, a medium-tolarge research vessel capable of polar operation

will ultimately be needed for basic studies of

polar marine life.
Ch. 4—Selected National Programs Ž 149

The Marine Mammal Program

Curtailment by MMPA of U.S. harvesting of

many marine mammals has drastically reduced

direct acquisition data on population sizes and

auxiliary characteristics, such as age at maturity,

sex and age distribution, fecudity, and survival

rates based on catch-effort and mark-recapture

procedures. In the absence of harvesting, therefore, marine mammal information must be acquired through scientific expeditions using alternate study methods like mark-resighting, sightings per unit effort, and direct counting. A major

drawback to such methods is that often an unknown and inestimable fraction of the population is not visible; indices of abundance are all

that can be reliably obtained from many such

surveys. A major goal of future methodological

research should therefore be to develop corrections for nonvisible population fractions so that

estimates of total abundance can be made.

Meeting the research and survey requirements

of MMPA will be costly. Funding limitations in

the past have generally constrained methodological research and technological development;

have slowed the acquisition of data, analysis, and

distribution; and have created shortages of necessary equipment and manpower. Most marine

mammal survey programs have been severely

hampered by these limitations, and it is clear that

if these programs are to improve to the extent required, a major increase in financial support is

mandatory.

80-710 0 - 81 - 11
150 . Technology and Oceanography

THE CLIMATE RESEARCH PROGRAM

Basic understanding of world climate and the

ability to predict climate changes do not exist

now, but a major new research program to address this subject is urged by the National Climate Program Act of 1978. Such a progra m

would involve major efforts by the oceanographic

community in a series of large and definitive experiments, long-term data collection efforts, and

theoretical modeling.

The detailed physics of the ocean-atmosphere-cryosphere interaction, now largely unknown, must be understood before reliable

models can be constructed for estimating climate

variability on seasonal, yearly, and longer time

scales. 28 29 30 31 3 2

The National Climate Program Act

of 1978

The intent of the National Climate Program

Act is to strengthen and improve the Federal

research efforts to provide useful climate information and long-range forecasts to the public.

In the past, climate research consisted of individual programs in agencies such as NSF,

NOAA, and DOE whose goals were either to improve basic knowledge or to solve specific problems. The Act focused goals and efforts by calling

for the establishment of a National Climate Program Office within NOAA. It called for the

preparation of a 5-year plan to define the roles of

the agencies and offices involved and to provide

for program coordination.

The activities called for by the Act which are

relevant to determining ocean effects on climate

are:

——— — —

28CAR P, ~’hp PhySlca[ Basis OJ Cllrnate and Climate Modelling,

publication No. 16, (Geneva: WMO, 1975).

29B, v, Hamon and J. S. Godfrey, “The Role of the Oceans, ” in

Climate Change and Variability, A !iouthern Perspectt~!e, A. B. Pittock, et al. (eds. ) (Cambridge University Press, 1978).

JoNational Academy of Sciences, Ocean Sciences Committee, The

Ocean k Role in C[imate Prediction, Washington, D. C., 1974.

31 Nat iona] Academy of Sciences, Understa riding C[imate Change,

Washington, D. C., 1974.

JZNat iona] Academy of Sciences, Geophysics Study Committee.

Studtes /rz Gec)phystcs Energy and Climate, Washington, D. C.,

1977.

●

●

●

●

Assessments of the effect of climate on the

natural environment, agricultural production, energy supply and demand, land and

water resources, transportation, huma n

health, and national security.

Basic and applied research to improve the

understanding of climate processes — natural

and man-induced — and the social, economic, and political implications of climate

change.

Methods for improving climate forecasts

on a monthly, seasonal, yearly, and longer

basis.

Global data collection, monitoring, and

analysis activities to provide reliable, -useful,

and readily available information on a continuing basis.

The Act also contains specific requirements for

the participation by universities, the private sector, and others in applied research and advisory

services.

Climate Program Status

The National Climate Program Office is now

established and ongoing programs have been coordinated. During 1980, a 5-year plan33 was prepared and reviewed by the Climate Research

Board of the National Academy of Sciences.34 3 5

The ocean research portion of the climate program is now funded at about $10 million annually. A significantly larger and more concerted effort will be needed if any near-term improvements are to be made in understanding world climate and in developing useful forecast abilities.

Whether the present small group of ocean research projects develops into a major long-range

program in the next several years depends on how

clearly a plan can be stated, how specifically certain public benefits can be determined, and how

J3u s Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climate Program Office, Natzonal

C[imate Program, h“il!e- Year Plan, Washington, D. C., 1980.

j4Nat ional Academy of Sciences, Ocean Sciences Board, The

Continuing Quest, Large-Scale Ocean Science _fOr the Future,

Washington, D. C., 1979.

35u,S.Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmos.

pheric Administration, An Ocean Cltmate Research Plan, Washington, D. C., 1979.
Ch. 4—Selected National Programs ● 151

much funding will be needed to provide those

benefits.

Furthermore, while the 5-year National Climate Program Plan describes goals, experiments,

and data needs, the plan has not addressed technology needs to any significant degree. For this

major national research program, a strong technology effort is necessary. It will be important to

anticipate critical technology needs if significant

advancements in climate research are to be

made.

Much of the technology (both new techniques

as well as applications of existing techniques) to

conduct climate experiments and to collect these

data is not now in place. Some systems need to be

developed, others need to be built and tested,

and still others need to be operated and maintained over long time periods. The most critical

needs known at this time for measurements are

outlined here with their associated major technology needs.

Measurement Needs for Climate

and Ocean Processes

The Heat Budget

The Earth’s climate is controlled primarily by

the amount of solar heat the planet retains and

by the transport of that heat from one region of

the globe to another by the ocean and by the atmosphere. The global atmospheric transport of

heat is determined principally by the temperature differences between equatorial and polar

regions. The oceanic transport of heat is determined in large part by the global distribution of

wind stress.

The equatorial ocean regions receive and store

a surplus of solar energy which the transport

processes mentioned above eventually transmit to

the polar regions.

36 37 38 A large portion of the

3WA R p, The Pfjla r su hpro, qra m, publication No. 19 (Geneva:

WMO, 1978).

3’D. F,. Trt=nberth, “Mean Annual Poleward Energy Transports

by the Oceans in the Southern Hemisphere, ” forthcoming in f)ltna rntcs ()/ A t rnosph cres and oceans

3

*T. H. Vender Haar and A. H. Oort, “New F~timates of Annual

Poleward I%er,gy Transport by Northern Hemisphere Oceans, ” J

Phvstcal occan[,~r-aph~ 3(2), 1973, pp. 169-172.

heat which the atmosphere transports poleward is

extracted from the ocean in the warmer latitudes

through warming of the airmass just above the

ocean surface and through exchanges of heat in

the evaporation/condensation process. Processes

important in the oceanic transport of energy include surface drifts, major polewards currents

such as the Gulf Stream and the Kuroshio (off

Japan), deep-return flows in the mid-ocean, and

possibly oceanic eddies.

In the polar regions the ice cover affects global

climate changes by reflecting a substantial percentage of solar energy and by providing insulation between the relatively warm polar waters

and the much colder atmosphere. 39 40 Also, the

relationship between solar energy cycles, the

heat-transport processes, and icemelt and ice

growth, adds further complexity to overall global

climate forecasting.

Each of the oceanic processes that is involved

in climatic interactions is a component of the

ocean heat budget. The technology required for

evaluating each of the heat budget components

varies widely and ranges from the use of satellites,

to the use of drifting ocean buoys, to the use of

polar meteorological stations. In the following sections major components of the ocean heat budget

are discussed briefly and are linked to the technology required to evaluate the associated

oceanic mechanisms.

Incoming Radiation. – The energy from the

Sun passes mostly through the atmosphere and is

stored in the ocean at lower latitudes. In higher

latitudes the radiation balance is negative and

the Earth loses heat. Simple theoretical climate

models suggest that small variations in the incoming radiation can have dramatic effects on

the Earth’s climate .41 These models also suggest

that understanding and predicting climat e

change will require measurement of incoming

radiation to a precision that is only now becoming available. Since such measurements will most

——— —

tgw, F, Budd, ‘antarctic sea Ice Variations From Sate]] ite %ns -

ing in Relation to Climate, ”j G/acw/ogy 15, 1973, pp. 417-427.

40 Nationa] Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard

Space Fligbt Center, Propospd NASA Contribution to the Climate

program, Greenbelt, Md., July 1977.

4 ~ GAR p, The Phystca i Basu of Cltmate and Chmate Modelltng,

publlcatton N() 16 (Geneva: WMO, 1975).
152 . Technology and Oceanography

likely be made from satellites to avoid the biasing

effects of clouds, water vapor, and other factors

in the Earth’s atmosphere satellite instrumentation must meet extremely stringent requirements.

42 For example, satellite instruments will

have to be calibrated repeatedly to high accuracy

in order to measure changes in incoming radiation from the Sun that are only a fraction of 1

percent of the total.

Storage of Heat in the Ocean. –The incoming radiation from the Sun is partially reflected

by the clouds and by the ocean surface. The radiation energy that is absorbed by the ocean is

stored for various lengths of time and is later

either extracted locally by the atmosphere or carried by ocean currents to distant areas where it is

released from the sea.

The Earth’s temperature, on the average, is in

equilibrium (about as much energy is radiated

over a long period of time as is absorbed). The

surplus heat gained in the tropics is carried by the

atmosphere and the ocean toward the poles. Recent determinations of the Earth’s heat balance

from satellite measurements and from upper-air

measurements, have shown that the ocean probably transports a large share of the heat needed

for global balance.

43 At latitude 200 N., the

ocean carries 75 percent of the total heat and the

atmosphere carries only 25 percent. The amount

of heat carried by the ocean decreases at higher

latitudes. In the Southern Hemisphere the sparse

data allows only the tentative conclusion that

heat transport by the ocean is greater than that of

the atmosphere up to latitude 300 S. and remains

substantial even to latitude 600 S. 44

Simple measurements of the sea-surface temperature, at best marginal now, can provide fairly good estimates of the temperature throughout

the ocean’s upper mixed layer. However, the

measurement of sea-surface temperature must be

coupled with the measurement of the depth of

the mixed layer in order to estimate the amount

of heat stored. Furthermore, to qualitatively

4ZNa[ iona 1 Aeronautics and Space Administrate ion, Goddard

Space Flight Center, Proposed NASA Contribution to the Climate

Program, Greenbelt, Md., July 1977.

49Report of the JCC/SCOR Specialists Meeting, The Rde Of the

Oceans in The Clobal Heat Budget, 1978.

4~D. E. Trenberth. op. Cit.

understand heat transport, other properties of

the water column such as salinity and density

must also be known.

At present, satellites do not yield an accurate

measure of sea-surface temperature, and it appears that even in the future they will be unable

to measure the depth of the oceanic-mixed layer.

Such measurements at present are accomplished

from drifting buoys, research ships, survey ships,

naval ships, and ships-of-opportunity. New technologies which have been proposed for these

measurements include the use of acoustics either

from ships or from large arrays (acoustic tomography) and the use of aircraft-mounted laser systems. Expendable instruments that measure not

only temperature but also salinity will probably

be required for future climate-monitoring programs.

Horizontal Transport of Heat Within the

Ocean. –Since heat is transported by ocean currents over relatively large distances, knowledge of

currents is vital for determining the ocean’s effect

on the overlying atmosphere. The kind of current

measurements required, however, are not easily

made. In general, measurements of currents

presently obtained from current meters, hydrographic surveys, and other instruments are point

measurements of the currents and do not provide

either the time or space coverage required for

determining the mass and flow of near-surface

ocean currents over time.

45 46 47 (The data do

show, however, that there is strong variability of

current flow on both the seasonal and interannual time scales. ) New acoustic techniques have

been proposed for these measurements, but much

development work and experimentation will be

necessary to validate these methods. A combination of sensors, including satellite-based radar

systems and altimetry systems, coupled with

ground-based observing systems (such as drifting

buoys), measurements from ships-of-opportunity, island measurements of sea level, and vertical

‘~scente~ for Ocean Management Studies, Ocean Research in the

1980j (Kingston, R.1.: University of Rhode Island, 1977).

~f’Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and

Technology, A Untted States Climate Program Plan, Washington,

D.C. , 1977.

47 Roger Reveile, “Presentation of Report on the Pilot Ocean

Monitoring Study ( PO MS),” at Joint SCOR ‘ IOC Committee on Cli -

ma tic Changes and the Ocean (CCCO), 11th sess. , Miami, Fla. ,

Oct. 15, 1979.
Ch. 4—Selected National Programs . 153

profiles of temperature and salinity, will be required to measure heat transport in the ocean.

The role of mesoscale eddies in effecting

changes in ocean climate is not presently clear,

but may be significant. Aside from determining

their possible effects on driving the general circulation, it is important to determine the extent

that eddy motions effect a net transport of heat in

the ocean toward the poles. 48 49 Despite considerable investment in several large U.S. experiments, the role of these eddies in heat transport is

not fully understood.

Air/Sea Heat Exchange. – There are several

processes by which the ocean and the atmosphere

exchange heat:

Back radiation. – Infrared radiation from the

sea surface is a primary function of sea-surface

temperature; however, the actual measurement

of this variable, which is generally done by

satellite, is influenced by the fact that clouds and

water vapor in the atmosphere absorb and eventually reradiate the energy. Knowledge of cloud

structure is required to properly estimate the

back-radiation from the sea surface worldwide.

Although the net radiation leaving the Earth can

be determined, the amount of radiation leaving

the ocean versus that remaining in the watervapor field and transported to other parts of the

globe can only be estimated.

Sensible heating. –Scientists can estimate the

exchange of sensible heat (total heat content) between the ocean and atmosphere. To make these

estimates, however, requires knowledge of the

surface wind as well as that of the air-sea temperature difference (the most difficult of the two

estimates because it is generally a small difference between two large numbers). Present satellites cannot determine precisely enough, either

the sea-surface temperature or the air temperature in the boundary layer immediately above the

ocean’s surface. Satellite data may provide an indirect measurement of sensible heating, but the

techniques are not yet proven.

Latent heat transfer. –To estimate the heat

transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere

4g~cnter for ocean Management Studies, ~p. cit.

4’_+Fcdrra] Co{jrd i na t ing C(JU nci ] for Sck’ncc, Op. {’it

(through evaporation) and from the atmosphere

to the ocean (through condensation) requires a

knowledge of the wind, the temperature, and the

more difficult to measure moisture content of the

air just above the sea surface. The technology

necessary to carry out surface wind and temperature measurements is just being developed, but

the technology to measure moisture content is not

currently available. It is absolutely crucial to

develop techniques to estimate the moisture content of the lowest 10 m of the atmosphere.

Precipitation. –Since the condensation of atmospheric water vapor results in precipitation,

measurement of precipitation can indicate a

component of the heat budget of the atmosphere.

Over land, measurement of precipitation is made

at meteorological stations. Over the ocean, there

is no satisfactory way to measure precipitation

from either existing or planned satellite systems.

The best measurement now available is a crude

measure by satellite of the rate of precipitation in

given regions at given times. However, since most

satellites pass a given area only twice a day, a rate

measurement becomes of questionable value

since the same rate does not apply during the 12

hours between passes.

Ice cover. – The lack of solar heat in the polar

regions results in the growth of large volumes of

sea ice on a seasonal basis. The resulting ice cover

provides insulation which prevents evaporative,

latent-heat processes from taking place.

Even satellite observations are inadequate for

making polar ice measurements. Ice processes occur over both long- and short-time scales. Earlier

Tiros satellite imagery and the later finer resolution Nimbus and Landsat imageries have been of

limited use in delineating sea ice extent and morphology and in distinguishing snow from cloud

cover. Synoptic data about polar ice can only be

obtained with satellites that have nearly polar orbits. No existing satellites meet this need and

much improved satellite sensors are needed for

any future satellite system.

Development of a Measuring Strategy

In order to understand and monitor the processes of ocean/atmosphere interaction relevant to

climate, it is necessary to carry out specific ex-
154 ● Technology and Oceanography
Ch. 4—Selected National Programs . 155

periments and to do long-term monitoring of

critical processes. A major ocean observing

system must take into account both the scientific

understanding of the ocean’s role in the climate

system and the rapid changes in technology and

in the needs for technology that come as the field

develops. 50

A NOAA-sponsored study on the development

of a system for ocean-climate monitoring is

underway. This study will include technical planning and systems evaluation leading to the

development of a global-monitoring system for

climate studies. The immediate objective of this

effort is the formulation of a strategy for system

development that includes an assessment of how

emerging technologies can meet monitoring requirements, a projected time-phasing of capabilities, an estimate of the time-phasing of costs,

consideration of institutional factors (domestic

and international) involved in a comprehensive

ocean-monitoring activity, and the coordination

with other ocean-monitoring activities.

As currently conceived, the observing system

will evolve from existing and projected observational capabilities, including satellites, buoys,

ships-of-opportunity, and island stations, into a

systematic means of monitoring climatically significant ocean variables. Measured parameters

will include surface temperature (air and sea),

upper-ocean transport, sea ice extent, and upperand deep-ocean circulation.

The first phase of this study, which began in

earl y 1980, will focus on the problems of measuring the components of the regional heat budgets in the upper levels of the ocean globally in

order to describe the annual and interannual

variabilities. Supplementary objectives are to

assess how to determine the uptake and redistribution of carbon dioxide in the ocean and to

monitor the variability of selected key indices in

deep water. It is expected that to achieve global

coverage at a reasonable cost, the final longrange system will have to be based primarily on

remote sensing from space, with in situ measurements and inference from modeling used to fill in

‘@N~tional Acad~my of Scimtces, Climate Dynamics Panel, U.S.

Committee for CARP, F;lerncnts o/ a Rcscarrh .’$tratcgy f~jr /h e

[ ‘ntted Statc~ C[trnat, PTc~gram, Washington, D. C., 1978,

gaps and to provide calibration benchmarks.

Specific attention will be given to the problem of

accurate statistical sampling.

A follow-on phase of the NOAA study will involve systems engineering studies to determine

the most effective systems configurations and to

perform detailed planning of systems development efforts. It is expected that each phase of the

study will take approximately 1 year.

A second phase of planning for ocean monitoring for climate is the Pilot Ocean Monitoring

Study (POMS), now in the planning stages. 5 1

POMS was proposed as part of the World Climate Research Program, which in turn is sponsored by the International Council of Scientific

Unions and the World Meteorological Organization. Meetings were held in late 1979 and

mid-1 980 by the World Climate Research Program and the Scientific Committee on Oceanic

Research to set the goals of POMS. POMS planning meeting recommended that the following

activities be carried out:

●

●

●

●

●

Study the feasibility of conducting a basinscale experiment to evaluate the poleward

transport of heat in the atmosphere and

ocean using a variety of techniques.

Explore the feasibility and design of an experiment to determine the global ocean circulation using a combination of hydrographic methods and the geodetic/altimetric satellite techniques under development. A unique opportunity to use these

techniques may occur during the latter part

of the 1980’s when a U.S. satellite, a European satellite, and a Japanese oceanographic satellite orbit simultaneously.

Designate certain geographic lines in the

ocean for continued long-term monitoring

by POMS participants.

Establish a theoretical oceanographic group

to assist, interact with, and provide general

theoretical expertise to the POMS study as

required.

Take steps to initiate vigorous technical interaction and exchange between laboratories, using buoys to facilitate development of

—

“ Revelle, op. cit.
156 ● Technology and Oceanography

oceanographically and meteorologically instrumented buoy systems suitable for POMS

and corresponding satellite-data transmission links.

At the present time, active planning is going

on in the United States, U. S. S. R., Canada,

France, Federal Republic of Germany, the

United Kingdom, and Japan to prepare for

POMS. First studies such as the proposed North

Atlantic Heat Flux and Storage Study, have

already begun. Some simple monitoring systems

such as island stations will also contribute, but

they must be maintained and coordinated better

than the existing systems.

Existing Technology for Ocean Experiments

and Monitoring

Many technology systems are now in place or

available for use in climate research and monitoring programs. Future climate research will be

dependent on the following technological advances and continued support for these systems.

Stations. – Existing long-term oceanic data

come from relatively few sources: coastal stations,

island stations, ocean weather ships, and shipsof-opportunity. Since 1972, organized and expanded ships-of-opportunity programs have been

contributors to a description of the climate

system because of their good, long-term reliability. Furthermore, they have been used in several

of the large-scale, long-term ocean experiments

with increasing success. These systems take on

greater significance now with the phase-out of

the ocean weather ships. Aircraft-of-opportunity

and satellites also have substantial potential for

some surface measurements, but they have not

yet been available on a routine, long-term basis.

Sensors. – Only relatively few types of measurements are available in any abundance or continuity in the climatic data base. One of the most

used measurements is sea-surface temperature.

Since post-World War II, this variable has generally been measured by ships’ injection thermometers. Prior to that, bucket thermometers were

used to obtain the data. Sea level, as measured at

various tide stations, is another type of measurement that exists in abundance; but more longterm sea-level and bottom-pressure measurements are required to establish a climatic data

set. In general, the measurements have been

made with standard instrumentation that has not

changed dramatically for many years.

There are now some regions of the world’s

oceans where short and intermittent time series of

temperature, salinity, and water velocity as functions of depth can be constructed. These data

have come from a variety of measurement techniques, such as measurement by Nansen bottle

casts or by continuous-drifting instruments and

current meters. The stability of temperature sensors used to collect this data is good, but the

salinity sensors tend to drift. Thus, a stable salinity sensor is needed.

The time series referred to above come from

point data. There are no good techniques existing now for the measurement of temperature and

salinity over large volumes, although acoustical

techniques hold promise here. Instruments that

measure current velocity accurately over large

volumes, especially near the surface and in the

presence of wave motion, are another major

need.

Other extremely useful measurements taken

over the ocean are those pertaining to the windfield. Surface wind, as reported by ships-of- opportunity, is generally not measured from a ship’s

anemometers, but rather is based on visual

estimates — e.g., relating sea state to the Beaufort

scale. Nevertheless, these crude estimates have

been of great help in a variety of research programs. Information on the wind strength at upper levels comes from standard radiosonde observations taken from islands, ocean and land

weather stations, and currently from satellite

soundings. The relationship of satellite-measured

winds to actual surface winds is still not

understood.

Some satellite data sets, extending back to the

mid- 1960’s, are presently being used in climate

research. Among the most important sets are the

estimates of cloud cover from reflectance data.

The sensors that provide this information have

changed considerably since satellites were first

launched, and this change can create potential

problems. Extensive study of satellite-sensed

ocean parameters is required to understand fully
Ch. 4—Selected National Programs . 157

how to interpret present satellite measurements ,

Moreover, satellite estimates of variables such a s

surface wind, sea-surface temperature, vertical

temperature profiles in the atmosphere, upperlevel winds, etc., are only just beginning to have

the accuracy required to make them useful in

long-term climatological studies. Unfortunately,

most satellite data is discarded before it can be

used in climate studies, a policy that severely

hinders research.

Data Management Systems. – Most of the

data collected by the methods indicated above

are organized through different management

and reporting structures. Eventually most of the

data find their way to the National Climatic

Center, where they become available to interested users. The mere mass of the data makes it

difficult for the uninitiated to determine what is

available.

Generally, the data in the Center are in their

natural form. Most researchers would prefer to

work with products such as monthly contour

maps of the Pacific trade-wind fields. The development of such climatological products is largely

the province of the individual researcher. While

these products are sometimes available on request, they are not widely disseminated in the

oceanographic community.

New Technologies for the Climate Research

Program

The climate studies required by the National

Climate Program Act of 1978 will require major

new ocean programs that will in turn require new

technology. Ocean programs currently planned

for the 1980’s are designed to meet the need for

understanding climate processes, but are generally underfunded in the technology area.

To gain the technological capability to measure climate-related oceanic parameters, an integrated approach may be needed. Such an approach would take into account both national

and international climate parameter-measurement capabilities, resources, and research programs. However, particular attention should be

addressed to:

● the improvement of remote sensors proposed

for the NOSS and other climate-proposed

satellites,

●

●

●

●

techniques for improving satellite sensor

ground-truth,

innovative, in situ measurement systems to

provide integrated heat-flux data,

techniques for gaining reliable oceanic and

meteorological data on a real-time basis

from the world fleets of research ships and

naval vessels and from ships-of-opportunity,

and

techniques for gaining data from the polar

regions.

OTA has identified the following technology

needs for future climate research and monitoring

of the ocean.

A Mix of Technologies. – One of the most important needs is for a variety of technologies to

address the climate problem. Since almost all

satellite systems sense only the skin of the ocean

and cannot measure all quantities at the airwater interface that are required for the determination of the heat budget, it is apparent that

space systems are not totally sufficient for studying the ocean’s role in climate. Many other

technologies must also be used such as instrument

packages on ships-of-opportunity to collect

surface-transfer measurements and upper-ocean

temperature soundings. An expanded and improved ships-of-opportunity program should be

developed to gather large-scale and long-time

series of ocean data. Drifting buoys can be used

to measure currents, sea-level pressure, sea-surface temperature, and other data. Research ships

are needed to gather ground-truth data for complex satellite measurements and to perform process experiments. Subsurface moored instruments

are required for determining vertical and temporal signals of relevant oceanic variables. Since

the technology needs of the climate program are

shared by many other oceanographic programs,

these programs will also benefit from climaterelated technology development.

Data Management and Computers. – Present

data reporting methods tend to be slow and nonuniform and could be 1argely replaced in the

future by a single data-retrieval system. The key

to the system would be a reliable, inexpensive

satellite data-relay link. With satellites as prime

receivers and transmitters of climatological data

from ships, islands, or other satellites, it should
158 . Technology and Oceanography

be possible to develop effectively a single climate

datastream. Subsequent production of products

for use by operational agencies, researchers, and

others would then be a relatively straightforward

matter. At present, the huge volume of climate

data from satellites and from various other platforms is overwhelming and is poorly managed in

available archives. It is critical, therefore, to invest in competent, well-managed data archives

that will involve fifth- and sixth-generation computers to manipulate and retrieve the data base.

The immense investment in satellites and other

technology is wasteful unless the data base can be

easily available for scientists and Government

managers to use. In fact, many types of users will

want access to both in situ and remotely sensed

oceanic and atmospheric data. Data formatting,

distribution, and management must be considered to provide an effective way by which the

research scientist, the governmental climateproduct packager, and the ultimate user can

have timely access to the data at minimum cost.

A single data-management structure could coordinate and ensure the continuity of the ocean

climate-data collection program. A large part of

the job in monitoring climate is one of managing

a wide variety of resources, institutions, instrumentation, and people. This management

structure does not now exist. In addition to developing the management structure, there must be a

long-term commitment to carry through the climate-monitoring program. Without this com -

mitment, such long-term measurement programs

should not be started.

Specific Major Technologies. – It is essentially impossible now to measure upper (top 100 m)

ocean currents with accuracy. Present means of

attempting the necessary measurements have

serious flaws. Drifting buoys are not accurate due

to windage. Line-of-sight radars are very useful

only when mounted on land or on ship. Over-thehorizon radar are affected by ionospheric fluctuations which are poorly understood. Current

meters are expensive and are unreliable due to

wave contamination. Sea-surface slope from

satellites yields information on the surface geostrophic components of the currents; but for the

total surface current, one must also know the

wind-driven component. If a new technology to

measure ocean currents with 10-percent accuracy

is developed, it will be a major breakthrough for

ocean-climate research and for other important

problems, such as the fate of pollutants (such as

oilspills), fisheries management, rescue-at-sea

maneuvers, and numerous military problems.

It is also essential for ocean-climate studies

that the windfield be estimated over the ocean on

a time scale of at least once a month and on space

scales of 200 by 200 km. There are potential satellite systems to accomplish this such as the

microwave scatterometer technique. However,

the instruments involved have had limited

ground-truth verification, and considerable research is required to ensure that their windvelocity determinations are meaningful.

It is extremely difficult to estimate precipitation, an important part of the energy budget,

over the ocean. Rainfall rates have been estimated by observing cloudtop height and density

using visible and infrared radiation (on the

assumption that thick, dense clouds rain more

than thin clouds) and by observing radio energy

emitted by liquid water (but not ice) at radio

wavelengths near 2 cm. This latter method has

an accuracy of around +/- 50 percent, wit h

spatial resolutions on the order of 30 km. The accuracy of the radio technique is limited primarily

by inadequate spatial resolution and by the

uncertainty in present knowledge of the height of

the freezing level and of the distribution of raindrop sizes. (The latter can perhaps be estimated

from other satellite data; although this has not

yet been done. ) These techniques all require extensive verification. It is highly probable that a

new, advanced instrument will be required for

estimating precipitation.

It is generally believed that the latent heat flux

(evaporation) is several times larger than the sensible heat flux. In order to estimate the latent

heat flux, the sea-surface temperature must first

be known and then the saturation water content,

the windspeed, and the humidity or water content a few meters off the sea surface must be determined. Until reliable technology to measure

remotely the humidity of the air near the sea surface is developed, scientists will not be able to calculate balanced heat budgets.
Acronyms and Abbreviations

AGOR

ALT

AOML

AOSS

ASDAR

AVHRR

BLM

BT

CCTV

CEAS

cm

co,

COSMOS

CTD

CZCS

CZMP

DACS

DMSP

DMSS

DOD

DOE

DO I

DPSS

DSDP

EDIS

ENDEX

EPA

ESIC

ESRO

FCMA

FGGE

Flip

FNOC

ft

GAO

– (Navy classification) oceanographic

research ship

— radar altimeter

– Atlantic Oceanographic and

Meteorological Laboratory

– Aircraft Oil Surveillance System

(Coast Guard)

— aircraft to satellite data relay

— advanced very high resolution

radiometer

— Bureau of Land Management (DOI)

– bathythermograph

— closed-circuit television

– Center for Environmental Assessment

Services

— centimeter

— carbon dioxide

— complementary-summary metal oxide

semiconductor

— conductivity-temperature -depth

— coastal zone color scanner

– Coastal Zone Management Program

(NOAA)

– Data Acquisition and Control

Subsystem (NOAA)

– Defense Meteorological Satellite

Program

– Defense Meteorological Satellite

System

– Department of Defense

– Department of Energy

– Department of the Interior

– Data Processing and Service

Subsystem (NOAA)

– Deep-Sea Drilling Project (NSF)

– Environmental Data and Information

Service (NOAA)

– Environmental Data Index

(NOAA /EDIS)

– Environmental Protection Agency

– Environmental Science and

Information Center

– European Space Research

Organization

– Fishery Conservation and

Management Act of 1976

– First GARP Global Experiment

– Floating Instrument Platform

– Fleet Numerical Oceanography

Center (U.S. Navy)

– feet

– General Accounting Office

GARP

GOASEX

GOES

GPS

HEBBLE

ICEX

I POD

JASIN

JOI

JPL

km

LAMMR

LAMPEX

LSI

m

mm

MMPA

MODE

NAS

NASA

NASDA

NAVSTAR

NCC

NDBO

NESS

NGSDC

NMFS

NMPA

NOAA

NODC

NOMAD

NORDA

– Global Atmospheric Research

Program

– Gulf of Alaska Seasat Experiment

– Geostationary Operational

Environmental Satellite (NASA)

– Global Positioning System

– High Energy Benthic Boundary

Layer Experiment

– Ice and Climate Experiment (NASA)

– International Program of Ocean

Drilling

–Joint Air-Sea Interaction Experiment

–Joint Oceanographic Institutions,

Inc.

–Jet Propulsion Laboratory

– kilometer

– large antenna multichannel

microwave radiometer

– Large Area Marine Productivity

Experiment

– large-scale integrated

— meter

— millimeter

– Marine Mammal Protection Act of

1974

— Mid-Ocean Dynamics Experiment

– National Academy of Sciences

– National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

— National Space Development Agency

— navigational system using time and

ranging

– National Climatic Center

– National Data Buoy Office (NOAA)

– National Environmental Satellite

Service (NOAA)

– National Geophysical and

Solar-Terrestrial Data Center

– National Marine Fisheries Service

(NOAA)

— Marine Mammal Protection Act of

1974

— National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (Department of

Commerce)

– National Oceanographic Data Center

(NOAA/EDIS)

– U.S. Navy Oceanographic

Meteorological Automatic Device

— Naval Oceanographic Research and

Development Administration (U.S.

Navy)

159
160 . Technology and Oceanography

NORPAX – North Pacific experiment

NOSS

NSF

NWS

OASIS

OCS

OMB

OMDP

ONR

OTEC

OTES

PMEL

POMS

RFC

RFP

ROV

SAR

SASS

SCATT

SDSD

SEAS

SEM

– National Oceanic Satellite System

– National Science Foundation

– National Weather Service (NOAA)

– Oceanic and Atmospheric Scientific

Information System

– Outer Continental Shelf

– Office of Management and Budget

– Ocean Margin Drilling Program

(NSF)

– Office of Naval Research (U.S. Navy)

— ocean thermal energy conversion

– Ocean Technology and Engineering

Service (NOAA)

– Pacific Marine Environmental

Laboratory

– Pilot Ocean Monitoring Study

(NOAA)

– Research Facilities Center (NOAA)

– Request for Proposal

— remotely operated vehicle

— synthetic aperture radar

— microwave scatterometer

— radar scatterometer system

— Satellite Data Services Division

(NOAA/EDIS)

– Shipboard Environmental Data

Acquisition System (NOAA)

— space environment monitor

SFSS

SIO

SMMR

SMS

SOFAR

SPURV

SST

STD

STS

TOPEX

TOVS

TRDSS

UNOLS

USGS

VACM

VHF

VIRR

VISSR

WEFAX

WMO

WPL

X BT

– Satellite Field Services Stations

– Scripps Institution of Oceanography

— scanning multichannel microwave

radiometer

– Synchronous Meteorological Satellite

(NASA)

– Sound Fixing and Ranging

— self-propelled underwater research

vehicle

— sea-surface temperature

— salinity-temperature-depth

– Space Transportation System

– Topography Experiment (NASA)

– Tires operational vertical sounder

– Tracking and Data Relay Satellite

System (Western Union)

– University-National Oceanographic

Laboratory System (NSF)

– U.S. Geological Survey (DOI)

— vector-averaging current meter

— very high frequency

— visual and infrared radiometer

— visible and infrared spin-scan

radiometer

– Weather Facsimile System

– World Meteorological Organization

– Wave Propagation Laboratory

— expendable bathythermograph
Bibliography

The following is a brief list of recent reports

that have addressed both Federal efforts and

public policy and that can be used for further

reference.

1,

2.

3.

Federal Coordinating Council for Science,

Engineering, and Technology, Committee on

Atmosphere and Oceans, The Federal Ocean

Program, 1976 (n. p.) 1979.

General Accounting Office, Federal Agencies

Administering Programs Related to Marine

Science Actizn”ties and Oceanic Affairs (Washington, D.C . : GAO, 1975).

National Academy of Sciences, Ocean Sciences Board, The Continuing Quest, LargeScale Ocean Science for the Future (Washington, D. C.: NAS, 1979).

4.

5.

6.

Ocean Research in the 1980k, recommendations from a series of workshops on promising

opportunities in large-scale oceanographic research (Kingston, R. I.: Center for Ocean

Management Studies, University of Rhode

Island, August 1977).

Report of the National Planning Conference

on the Commercial Development of the

Oceans, Conference Addresses and Summary, vol. 1, Washington, D.C. and Airlie,

Va., June 9-12, 1976.

U.S. Department of Commerce, U, S. Ocean

Policy in the 1970s: Status and Issues (Washington, D.C .: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1978).