# Platforms Technical Council
# 2006 Proposals


# Attending: Chaffey, Chavez, Headley, Hobson, Robison

# Objective: 
Discuss Proposals related to platforms and potential interactions with proposal process

# Potential Proposals:

- Laser velocimetry (instrument)
- IODP (continuation?)
	- new drilling program may need to ramp up new ship and new
- AUV Docking	
- Eddy Flux Correlation
- Benthic Rover
- MOOS (continuation -- Cable improvements, MSE, ?)
	- MSE is continuation, bulk of 
	- no development work next year
	- cable
	
- Hovering AUV
- Midwater
	- In situ respirometry (feasibility?)
		- instrumentation part mature
		- on ROV for short duration initially?
		- on sea floor for first year w/ logger
	- in situ analyzer (future)		- 

- AUV gulper
- Plug and Work on OASIS
- Energy scavenging for profilers
- Tiburon Power Boost
- DART Buoy tsunami warning on M1/M2 
	- DART design like toga/tau cost sensitive, very specific purpose
	- MARS would be a good candidate...
- M1,M2 replacement review (we should ask Keith)
- Ken Smith & Robison: upward looking sonar in canyon, linked to MARS/MOOS 
	look at animal and particle transport through benthic boundary layer
	includes still camera to ground-truth target recognition	
	Continues Smith's work at Station M
	- Should we involve Smith in MSE?

- No CIMT next year
	- external CIMT funding snagged, existing $ can run thru July 2006

- External (NSF) proposal to do IEEE 1588 reference design implementation (not put in yet)?


# Proposal Process:


- What should we do to interact with proposal process?
	- abstract review, feedback
	- scoping projects

- What should we be looking for in a proposal?
	- Important directions
	- Resource allocation (overloading to look for etc.)

- want to improve quality of engineering proposals: better integration with science, generate proposals that focus more on new engr thrust areas, long term planning 

- should we look at big picture, or little details
	- big picture (5 yr)
	- detailed vetting? this is a management role
- we should bring a new level of expertise to the proposal process
- management will be hearing proposal abstracts without us

- we should 
	- make programmatic direction statements that mteam can use as a lens to view proposals
	- guiding and positive influence
	- NOT vetting individual
	- offer tech feedback on proposals as a service on request
	- initiate proposals to fill strategic gaps
	- get a project, figure out what needs to be done, and get it proposed and done
- proposals should ask proposers to classify proposals
- no one has ever asked to see proposals before they come in
- want to help with problem of projects dragging on forever using feedback to give proper support to projects: spend the resources to make good decisions (feasibility study)

Action Items:
- Initiatives (Aug 16?)
- ping management and say that we want to sort proposals
- meet Monday 13:00
- forward initiatives workshop mail to Chaffey
? ask keith whether M1/M2 MOOS replacement feasiblity should be under MOOS? when/how should this 
	- it would be too early to do replacement study before MSE complete, especially 
	if plug and work on OASIS is done