Notes from SEC meeting on 2 Mar 05. In attendance were Tom O., Kent H., Hans T., Charlie P., Ken J., Dave C., Andy H. Ken Johnson: Interested in "Whole ocean productivity", or "primary productivity." What happens to PP as the oceans warm? Requires many measurements over large areas. This is currently done by float systems. He is interested in two: 1) System ARGO. Deep water in open ocean, live at 1000m, ascend 4 times, remain on surface 12 hr to transmit data over very slow ARGOS satellite system. Fifth time descend to 2000 meters. One cycle to surface every 10 days. One way comms. Cannot program vehicle. Cost $40k, last 4 years, don't try to recover. Run on alkaline; 60% of power required for comms. Sensor drift is a problem. UW is developing an improved version that uses Iridium, which is much faster (30 min data transfer, only needs <30% of battery) and is full duplex so that the float can be programmed. 2) BSOP Benthic Station Ocean Profiler. These work "on the shelf" and rest on the bottom between cycles. 1600 exist in the oceans now. 400g buoyancy change. Webb Research makes Apex floats. Ken likes these. Float #894 has had the same electrode running for more than 2 years. Things to improve in the float system: Increase data download, increase number of cycles, increase number of floats. A stable pH sensor would be very useful. Current sensors require calibration every few hours. Gliders may be useful. The problem is that payload capacity is limited by low-drag shape. He would only need it to stay approximately in the same area, so drag could be traded for payload capacity. But floats have the advantage of being simpler, much cheaper, and with higher payload capacity. Dave C: Core Engineering needs to continue support of the MAUV or opportunity will be lost. Stuff to do on MAUV: Acoustic Comms, Qnx to Linux, Improve vehicle-to-user interface, OA, Aided Nav, Battery, Real-time adaptive mapping sonar gain adjustments. (Hans: higher maneuverability and terrain-aided navigation for work in canyon). Charlie: We can get support for the MAUV by developing and clearly enunciating a 5-year plan and schedule. MAUV can replace more expensive Deep-towed systems. $1M for 3x( 6kmx6km) towed surveys. Big ship and crew. Hans: Need to extend AUV range - better batteries. Mbari MAUV will be made available through NURP. Charlie: Big Issues: 1. Flux of fluids and gasses through sea floor. 2. Transport of materials across bottom of ocean floor. The sediments on the bottom act like a big filter. Seawater cycles through. Loihi is the best location for a remote MOOS because events will be frequent and in a relatively small known area. The problem with Juan de Fuca is that the events occur over a much bigger area and timespan. MOOS and MARS are in a race? Tom O. suggests standardization of instrument interfaces. Charlie: A big question is what systems/vehicles will be abandoned or discontinued in order to make room for the new ones. To know what to concentrate on, list the big systems (AUV MOOS, MARS) and poll scientists to find out what percentage of time they expect to spend on each in the next 5 years. Dave: Don't forget ROVs in Platforms charter. Dave: Reson has a higher resolution head than SM2000. Reson is .94x.94 deg, while SM2000 is 1.5x1.5 going to 2.5x1.5 at the outer edges of the flat array. (Reson's flat array is worse; .94x.94 to > 2.5 at the edge). SM has poor side-lobe rejection. Noisier. Costs $120k versus $350k for the Reson. The version of Reson sw we have now has crude beam forming and bottom picking algorithms. **7 Mar 05** Present: Tom O., Kent, Mark C., Yanwu, others... No science reps. A specific plan is needed. Tom: Major disconnect between Sci and Eng upper Managment. Tom got into a situation with Ken. Ken didn't want to sign Tom's proposal to work with Indiana folks on standardized instrument interfaces. NSF Sensors and sensor Networks Proposal. Tom said that Ken thinks that large scale software infrastructure project is not realistic. Orion is "'pie in the sky'". Ken apparently prefers low cost large mooring arrays over MOOS high-cost high-tech (quantity over quality) moorings. Ed: -First identify science areas. -Identify platforms that support these. -Identify projects and priorities. Ties back to Mbari ?? Common technology threads. Address what we're already doing. Select areas not to pursue and why. Make more effort with Steve Rock 15 yrs. Bill is putting a list of projects together. S.P. should have process for deciding which projects to discontinue. Rob: Scientists should be evaluated based not only on publications but also on support of engineering projects. **9 Mar 2005** Mark C., Yanwu, Tom O., Ed, Andy, Kent. Offsite. We're on the hook for planning progress on Tuesday. Software and Data Systems Engineering has a folder in the Project Library. Work on Sections 6 and 7 of Kent's strategic plan. Implementation Plan - Start with what we've heard from Science. Develop process for selecting something? Should know about 1-2 yr plan. Metrics for success? Weed out SWOT stuff. Move to appendix. Mark says that Eng should present future tech trends to Science. Ed says we should hire an on-site instructor for a quarter for oceanography 101 for engineers. Big argument about having this class. Mark: Biggest impediment for Scientists working w/ eng: -Takes too long. -Doesn't work, or solves the wrong problem, or too complex. Tom says that the problem is not enough interaction with sci during project to prevent it from going off the rails. Not enough face time with science during project. Kent: We're too project driven, and don't concentrate enough on the process of developing what the project is. Yanwu - PI Scientist should give a few lectures at the start of a project to the team members about the relevant science and background. This would be more focused than a course. Tom: Due diligence of a project member is to learn as much as necessary for a project. Mark thinks that there is too much diversion from our primary responsibilities by doing stuff like taking an Ocean course. Mark: Have Scientists give a presentation about their problems. Then two weeks later Eng give a pres about the relavent technology. Tom: Incremental developments where you go to sea frequently. Spectrometry and profiler are examples of incremental development and sea trips. Action items. 1) We'll each red line Kent's document. 2) Prepare a list of what to present and ideas about how to spiff up the presentation. Mark: History of ROVs 11 March 05 Go see ryjo's presentation on Monday at 11:50; he'll present something similar at the offsite. Charlie P. also. Tom: we should concentrate on what's broken and how to fix these. Make explicit that we're developing community resources which add different pressures in that if our schedule slips then all the dependent experiments slip slso. chma: Our advocates must take a long-term view and commint for the common good. What sort of problems are unique to platforms? Propose solutions. Scientists' evaluation should include their contribution to technology. Look up the report from the last visiting committee. Total offsite presentation should be 2.5 hrs, including ryjo's. We need a 1.5 hr presentation. Acknowledge the current strategic plan, which is MOOS, half of the institute's resources are going to this. chma: Inspirational section - cool platforms of the future. Comparision of mooring arrays with Auvs and gliders. Yanwu chma: potential roadmap. Wild-eyed vision. Rob to contribute Auv stuff. We must say what our vision is. Float these out there. Kent - state of strategic plan, swot. Ed and Tom - Andy - what we heard from science. Big win of the reorg - Ken Johnen's only ** 16 Mar 2005 ** Science review section. Verify with them Analysis - how does it affect us? Potential Plans Going over Kent's presentation. Build vs. Buy decision - strategic issue. Comments on the Auv presentation: Andy: 1) Outline slide that states the point of the presentation. 2) Show that there's more to do on Dorado Tom: Slide on autonomy. Ripe area for collaboration; ties to Stanford, Ames & JPL. List the barriers to autonomous operation. List the benefit to Science for the areas of Auv research. Mark: Need references for some of these statements or it's air-ware. Why can't smaller vehicles go deep? 17 Mar Rush to new projects leaves potential of current projects unrealized. - (Rob) Second engineering design iteration neglected; testing neglected - (Ed) Continued development neglected - (Kent) Issue of when to retire things Ensure project plans include shorter duration science