----- Original Message ----- 
From: Tom O'Reilly 
To: oreilly@mbari.org 
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 3:58 PM
Subject: Platform-Science meeting: 3/2/2005


Attending: Charlie Paull, Ken Johnson, Dave Caress, Rob McEwen, Hans Thomas, Andy Hamilton, Kent Headley, Tom O'Reilly

Goals
Learn about major science initiatives 
Measurements, experiments 
Think about potential advances in technology 
How to structure future interactions between Platforms and Science

Johnson:
NSF proposal to instrument ARGO floats with chemical sensors - measure productivity signals. Want to get basin-scale productivity calculation. ARGO is variable-buoyancy profiling float; 0-2000 meters. Currently measuring heat content (about 1600 floats deployed right now). Also look at BSOP (benthic stationed ocean profiler); sits on bottom, comes up to surface, sends data home, sinks again... Need to deploy many (hundreds at least) platforms with chemical sensors to get basin-scale data. Ken sees these as "next big thing" for him at least. BSOP costs about $40K per float. 

Limitations of system:
Sensor drift
Communication - uses ARGOS - needs 12 hours at surface just to get message out! ARGOS requires 60% of power budget. Some group moving toward IRIDIUM for bi-directional comms - e.g. change profiling rate in response to bloom. Iridium takes only 20% of power budget.

Could be tied in to satellite data. 
Look at http://flux.ocean.washington.edu/

Need to do cost-benefit analysis of profiling floats versus gliders.

Johnson would add pH sensors; difficult to do actually. pH sensors tend to drift, currently need to be recalibrated every couple of hours. 

Among the top science issues
What's happening to ocean productivity as ocean warms? Effects of winds, differential land-sea warming, albedo changes

Caress and Thomas:
Now wrangling with seafloor mapping AUV. Will talk about future of Dorado class AUV and mapping vehicle in partiuclar. Also talk about AUV capabilities in general for mapping.

Mapping AUV is functional, making lots of progress. At the point where a lot of things are working, but still lakc some funcitions, like acoustic comms, control systems issues, obstacle avoidance, aided navigation capabilities (LBL, USBL), improve aspects of core vehicle (port to Linux), improve user interfaces. Relatively small amount of core engineering right now; more focus to support engineering - this may not be too realistic. Hans adds: battery issues, realtime autonomous assessment/adjustment of sonar, autonomous navigation through extreme terrain (canyons). 

Summary: Caress would like MBARI to continue paying attention to Dorado and mapping vehicle specifically. Otherwise we won't reach full potential. 

Paull: should decide long-term use of mapping AUV. Fly-away loaned vehicle? Deep-tow surveys cost ~$1M bucks; equivalent AUV survey. Need to not just develop this vehicle, but use it as a tool. 

Caress: Milestones define when system is "operational". Beyond that point, it will be one of the platforms made availabe to ouside community through NURP (similar to ROVs). 

Goal is to map seafloor at high-resolution. Seafloor is fundamental to many aspects of oceanography; geomorphology, lithology, tectonics, etc. Also, benthic biologists are interested in geological context to benthic communities. Two unifying issues motivate lots of MBARI projects (MOOS, MARS, mapping vehicle)
Fluid/gas flux through seafloor 
Transport of material down to and across ocean floor; sediment transport, creation of substrates, etc.

NOTE: Charlie Paull has an open berth for 5-day Western Flyer cruise leaving a week from Thursday.

Paull: MBARI engineering often takes on very lofty goals, but doesn't follow through with actual science data. Need to be more science-results oriented. Have to show how our technology allows us to collect science data that couldn't be collected in any other way. Need to do incremental development.

Paull notes that there is only one MOOS science experiment - makes it look like we are divorced from economic reality. Need to take the bully pulpit to advocate MOOS. Loihi was a prime candidate for next experiment. 

Paull: MOOS had too many unrealistic big goals. White papers got written which describe these features, but misses step where individual scientists and engineers implement segments for which they are accountable. There was no unit pricing or valid cost analysis. Interesting survey to scientists: "what percent of next 5 years will you commit to various MBARI project?" Some projects like MOOS will be very poorly subscribed to. ORION program is in serious trouble; orginal goal was large cabled observatories which had no community buy-in. ORION workshop report is all over the place. ORION is competing against astronomical, HEP communities. 

O'Reilly: Strategy for science might be to develop experiment packages that are compatible between MOOS and MARS. Have to make sure that interfaces are compatible. 

Caress: Concerned that MBARI is giving up on ROV development. There is a LOT of room for improvement of ROV control; it is NOT trivial engineering. Hans notes that there is technology out there with potential for MBARI