Subject: RE: MDUC abstract Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 10:33:10 -0700 From: "Schramm, Rich" To: M-DUC Alias >> Our goal was to 'cover ourself' with budgetary allocation to support CTD work so we were not caught off >> guard when the users suddenly expect to use the Zephyr for ctd missions. The projects requesting to spin-up the Zephyr should identify and budget the costs - there shouldn't be sudden unexpected costs - as they would be clearly identified to management through the proposal process. >> Also, keep in mind that the profiler CTD's are the core instruments and it >> should not matter which vessel they are deployed from. Right? Wrong (in my opinion)... the costs associated with outfitting the Zephyr for PCTD would be in that project as well. If they are using the existing CTD/Rosette I suppose your argument might hold. But - correct me if Im wrong here - I believe MDUC discussed this with regards to Ken Johnson's Profile CTD and decided that data is not core data(yet anyway). He was welcome to add it to BOG but it was not agreed that it was a candidate for core support. Much of this discussion may be irrelevant until we get a read from management if they want the Zephyr outfitted for general research. My understanding - quite possibly flawed - is that it is a vessel for deploying AUVs. Perhaps Dave Caress could get a read from Marcia about whether she wants the Zephyr outfitted w/a winch, CTD, Rosette, and underway CTD capability. Perhaps she would identify where she wants it proposed and that would save us all guessing.... Or perhaps I should start with the obvious... Has anyone actually requested these capabilities on the Zephyr ???? Thanks - Rich -----Original Message----- From: Osborne, DJ Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 9:20 AM To: Schramm, Rich Subject: RE: MDUC abstract Hi Rich, thanks for the valuable input. Our goal was to 'cover ourself' with budgetary allocation to support CTD work so we were not caught off guard when the users suddenly expect to use the Zephyr for ctd missions. Also, keep in mind that the profiler CTD's are the core instruments and it should not matter which vessel they are deployed from. Right? The underway CTD system - now that is a different beast. dj -----Original Message----- From: Schramm, Rich Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 12:19 PM To: Grech, Chris; M-DUC Alias Cc: Graybeal, John; McCann, Mike Subject: RE: MDUC abstract My comments regarding CORE CTD abstract... 1)FYI - Data processing and archiving for core ROVCTD data is not through the BOG database - only PCTD and UCTD are in Francisco's database. ROVCTD is in the Expedition database. 2)I recommend removing Zepher PCTD/UCTD references. We (mduc) haven't even discussed if they would be core datastreams if they are collected. Whoever is requesting these data should get them approved through a separate proposal - not as part of MDUC's proposal for maintaining an existing core datastream. MDUC is to "advise management on the impact" of such a proposals. (see charter at http://mww.mbari.org/rd/MDUC/ ) Once a stable stream is established then MDUC should consider whether it meets the requirements for core data status and pending approval, take on oversite of it. 3)What elements went into the estimate of >10 days IAG time - I cant recall. -Rich -----Original Message----- From: Grech, Chris Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 10:55 AM To: Caress, David Cc: Osborne, DJ; Grech, Chris Subject: MDUC abstract Dave, Attached is the abstract that DJ, and I would like to include in projects for 2002. Please review and comment. *********************************************************************** Chris Grech - Deputy Director Marine Operations MBARI 7700 Sandholdt Rd. Moss Landing, Ca. 95039 grch@mbari.org (831)775-1909 work (831) 917-0303 cell *************************************