HRPRFEHECTIVE USE OF THE SHEA WOODS Eo a | LIBRARY ee EME Ge ALI EG ede INSTITUTION sos carte a ‘ oN i we wa ' Wy, hg ve TL ‘ ie Ww aK N in : pig Eg, eee of eh i oe = Feu s8 ZA p z ee aS aw wag agus Aa SEDATE REPORT OF THE PANEL ON OCEANOGRAPHY PRESIDENT’S SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE THE WHITE HOUSE June 1966 T ¢PE€2¢bOO TOEO g WOO 0 C0 O 1OHM/198IN HRFRFEHECTIVE USE OF THE SEA REPORT OF THE PANEL ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE PRESIDENT’S SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Boe oe (UL etienecr ese “TUTION JuNE 1966 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price 60 cents THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON June 17, 1966 Nature has lavished incredible bounty on this earth. Warmed daily by the sun, nourished by the land, sustained by atmosphere and water, man takes these riches largely for granted and often complains when they fail to suit his convenience exactly. But man can also use his energies and talents, constructively, to improve his surroundings. Much of our natural bounty consists of water. A source of fish and transport to the ancients, as they are today, the oceans of the world hold great promise to provide future generations with minerals, food, energy, and fresh water. We must turn our attention to finding more appropriate ways and better means of transforming this promise into achievement. This comprehensive report presents the findings and conclusions of a group of outstanding men who are deeply concerned to learn more about the oceans and how they can be made to serve mankind. I commend it to all who share that concern and ask the appropriate agencies and councils of the Federal Government to consider its recommendations. II PRESIDENT’S SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chairman Dr. DonaLp F. Hornie Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Vice Chairman Dr. HERBERT F. York, JR. Professor of Physics University of California, San Diego Dr. Ivan L. BENNETT, JR. Johns Hopkins Hospital Dr. Lewis M. BRANSCOMB Chairman Joint Institute for Laboratory Astro- physics Dr. MELVIN CALVIN Professor of Chemistry University of California, Berkeley Dr. SIDNEY D. DRELL Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Dr. Marvin L. GOLDBERGER Professor of Physics Palmer Physical Laboratory Princeton University Dr. PHILIP HANDLER Chairman Department of Biochemistry Duke University Medical Center Mr. WILLIAM R. HEWLETT President Hewlett-Packard Company Dr. FRANKLIN A. LONG Vice President for Research and Ad- vanced Studies Cornell University Dr. Gorpon J. F. MACDONALD Chairman, Department of Planetary and Space Physics Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics University of California, Los Angeles Dr. WILLIAM D. McELRoy Chairman Department of Biology The Johns Hopkins University Dr. GEORGE HE. PAKE Provost Washington University Dr. JOHN R. PIERCE Executive Director, Research Communications Sciences Division Bell Telephone Laboratories Dr. KENNETH §8. PITZER President Rice University Dr. FREDERICK SEITZ President National Academy of Sciences Dr. CHARLES P. SLICHTER Department of Physics University of Illinois Dr. CHARLES H. TOWNES Provost Massachusetts Institute of Technology III Contents SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMEN- DATIONS 225 S225) ele pees et Introduction 2 4a. 2242.0 ok aie el oh a ee Findings and Recommendations._-..2..=..-- 3-22 =e 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 IV INTRODUCTION: «..2- 22.25. 22225-0 2 eee 131 1.2 Bal 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Goals for a National Ocean Program_____________ Panel Objectives and Organization_____________- The World. Fish Catcha: 524 seo5 5S Utilization of Fish for Human Consumption __-____ Aquicultures <1 flees. ee eee DuMM ary! oot i oes Se ee MODIFICATION OF THE OCEAN ENVIRONMENT _ 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 Specific Considerations. .2.2 2.2.42. > eee ae What Needs, To Be Done. 2-225 s28e0a.- ue eee DUMMIATY = A Sate SE Nie Se ne Positionme. Problems. 2) Se DA ee Identification*of (Objects. =_-- 22-2. __- = eee Tools*Problemitte 5 2) 8). Uae eee DOtVICCs tie eck Ae he ee eee Surf Zone and Beach Engineering Problems_______ BUG VSS eh ne oak ots ot as ree fe eer Ce ee 4.10 New Lightweight, Compact Power Plant_________ 41 Mian tin Ghie Seaeee2 22680 Op oes et eh 412° Marmion ng 2a be a ee ee eee Page IX 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 OCEAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND NA- MONAT CS ECQCURERY 2.222222 5e2 oe ee eee Sale. introductions. 4.202202) bes 8 Mee et ote kL. t 5.2 Vital Navy Missions Heavily Depende: t 0 Ocean Seience and Technology... 22. 222522 -ehe 5.3 The Navy’s Oceanographic Program_-____________ 5.4 The Navy’s Role in Education and Research_____ 5.5 Interaction of Navy Programs With Civilian Abechmiolosy 2.8 2 Ss es eee seo MC OMelUsIOnsis te fee es ee ee eE OPPORTUNITIES IN OCEANOGRAPHIC RE- Boe Ae ey ee ee ee ee ee ee Gala tObservation= 222422202 ete ee 6-2) -Predi@tions. 1.2220. on eee ee eo ee Oromulnysical Processes. om ens eee ee ee GAC Biolosreal Processes 22. 48 Se 8 ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF OCEANOGRAPHY -____- (leo MTOAUCION as! ae ese eee eben es es 7.2 An Economic Evaluation of the Oceanographic Pro GIA. 2222 ee ee CURRENTS PAWUS 222 22522 bee ee eee ee 8.1 Organizational Structure_______________________ SAYA 11] 0) O10 ERD ee ae 8.3 Manpower Considerations_____________________- 8.4 National Interest in the Oceans________________- EDUCATION AND MANPOWER... --_--------- eee 9.1 General Requirements in Oceanographic Man- POWOI i = 65 ott eee ee ee Se eee Se 9.2 Education for Research Workers_______________- 9.3 Education for Technology and Commerce_ __-_-__- 9.4 Implications of Manpower Change______________ 9.5 Marine Study Centers________________________- FEDERAL ORGANIZATION AND PROGRAM____-_- 10.1 Federal Interest—Past and Present_____________ 10.2 Federal Role in a National Ocean Program _____- 10.3. Present Organizational Structure______________- 10-4 "Organization for the Kuture_-~ (P) e_ nObpmewesalldrroblemat os © 22. he ee ee 10.6 Support and Operation of Oceanographic Ships__- LO National) Wacilitres-baete end esse Se es Page #10) PRIORTTIES 2050 S23 oh oe alte et eee ee 11.1 Ocean Science and Technology_--_-_------------- 11.2 Ocean Science and Technology in Comparison with Other Wields 2572. 2 Umi aaniaa T bets aoe APPENDIXES J. Panel Membership and Activities___-.-_---.---------= Il. Moored-Buoy Array Program —__— 2... 42222 9220 2s III. Industry and the Ocean Continental Shelf__________-_-- ae 2. 3. 4, 5. lnitroducnons =a ee 28 oe Sol a Oo oe Participants in Continental-Shelf Conference at David Payson Niodell Bassinet. 2 22 Pb ee ee Summary Findings of the Five Industries_______-__-_-- RoelerenCes. 242 et eee ee ee IV. The National Oceanographic Program—A Perspective--__ V. Earlier Views on Federal Reorganizations of the Environ- mental ‘Seiences: >) ae Jit St ah hae ee ee VI. Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of VI Summary of Major Findings and Recommendations INTRODUCTION The PSAC Panel on Oceanography was formed in May 1965 at a time when widespread and intense controversy existed concerning the adequacy of our national effort to explore, understand and devel- op the oceans. The controversy was illustrated by congressional hear- ings held in the summer of 1965 on some 19 bills submitted during the first session of the 89th Congress and by the formation of special indus- trial groups to examine oceanography. The Panel completed its report in June 1966 just as enactment of the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966 assured the encouragements of a comprehensive and continuing long-range national program for the effective use of the sea. Oceanography is defined in various ways depending on the concern of the definer. The Panel has adopted the broad view, prevalent in the Congress and industry, that oceanography connotes more than scientific study of the sea. In this report oceanography refers to activities within the ocean that have significant scientific or techno- logical content. In its studies the Panel had four principal objectives: 1. To draft a statement of goals for a national program to serve the marine interests of the United States and to define the Federal role in pursuit of these goals. 2. To assess current and planned ocean-oriented programs for tech- nical soundness, adequacy of scope, balance of content, appropriate- ness of organization, funding, and management in light of relevant national goals. 3. To identify major opportunities for new programs in technology and science that should be given high priority in the next 5 to 10 years. 4, To recommend measures to effect an ocean science and technology program consonant with national needs and interests. Vil FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS National Goals. The oceans’ importance to national security, con- sidered in the widest possible sense, requires that goals for the Nation’s ocean program be clearly stated and that the program be oriented to- ward meeting these goals. The Panel therefore recommends that the President state the ultimate objective of the national ocean program as being effective use of the sea by man for all purposes currently considered for the terrestrial environment: commerce; industry, rec- reation and settlement, as well as for knowledge and understanding. This objective implies four specific goals : 1. Acquiring the ability to predict and ultimately control phenomena affecting the safety and economy of seagoing activities. 2. Undertaking measures required for fullest exploitation of re- sources represented by, in and under the sea. 3. Utilizing the sea to enhance national security. 4. Pursuing scientific investigations for describing and understand- ing marine phenomena, processes and resources (see sec. 1.1). Role of the Federal Government. Great concern was evident within the private sector as to the Federal Government’s proper role in developing the nation’s ocean program. The Panel believes that division of effort among government, industry, and universities ap- propriate to land-based activities is advisable for the oceans and that the Federal Government should not preempt these activities to the extent it has, for example, in space. We recommend that the Govern- ment perform four functions in achieving the goals of the national ocean program: 1. Enunciate national policies concerning the marine interests of the United States. 2. Foster exploration, development and use of oceans and their re- sources through establishment of appropriate financial, legal, regu- latory, enforcement and advisory institutions and measures. 3. Promote description and prediction of the marine environment and development of capabilities for its modification. 4. Initiate, support, and encourage programs of education, train- ing, and research and provide technical services and facilities related to activities in pertinent sciences and technology (see sec. 10.2). These Federal functions are not new; however, only the last two functions are to any degree developed and coordinated across existing agency lines. Systematic development and application by a more cen- tralized authority are required for efficient implementation of the first two functions. Oceans and National Security. Increased Federal participation in ocean activities is required for national security. The developing strategic situation, which may require a much improved undersea VIII deterrent force, coupled with the need for defenses against missile- launching submarines, implies that the Navy must develop the capabil- ity to operate anywhere within the oceans at any time. The Navy has underway a Deep Submergence Systems Project. This effort as presently constituted is insufficient if the Navy is to meet its goals in a reasonable time period. The Panel therefore recommends expansion of activities which will permit operation at any location and time within the oceans (see secs. 5.2, 5.3). It 1s recommended that a con- tinuing, special effort be made by the Navy to utilize personnel, facil- ities and know-how of the private sector in achieving its objectives in the Deep Submergence Systems and Man in the Sea Projects (see secs. 4.11, 5.3). Navy technological results in these programs should be made available to industry upon acquisition. The Navy presently has primary responsibility for development of capability for using man at depths in the oceans. The general level of research in the Man in the Sea Project is inadequate. In- sufficient attention has been give to biomedical problems of survival in the wet, cold, dark, high-pressure environment, and our efforts in this field lag well behind those of other countries. If the goals of the Man in the Sea Project are to be achieved, adequate opportunities must be provided for basic studies by a variety of institutions. In par- ticular we recommend establishment of a major shore facility fully equipped for the range of basic studies required by Man in the Sea. This facility should be associated with a university or medical re- search center. Navy efforts may need to be complemented through instrumented, movable, submersible laboratories for basic studies on man living beneath the sea’s surface for extended periods. ‘These laboratories should be available to a wide community of scholars outside the Navy who are interested in biomedical problems of man in the deep sea (see secs. 4.11, 10.7). The Panel recognizes that development of adequate programs in undersea technology and Man in the Sea may be hampered by tra- ditional views within the Navy to the effect that the Navy is primarily an operating force at or near the surface. If the Navy does not ade- quately pursue programs recommended in this report (see sec. 4), pro- gram responsibilities for Man in the Sea and undersea technology should be shifted to a civilian agency (see secs. 4, 5, 10.4). The 7hresher experience in 1963 and the recent lost nuclear weapon incident off the Spanish coast clearly illustrate the continuing im- portance of search-and-recovery capabilities. We recommend that ocean search-and-recovery missions related in any way to national security be the Navy’s responsibility. However, the technology de- veloped through such programs should be made available to industry on acurrent basis (see sec. 5.2). IX The Navy should have broad responsibilities in furthering ocean science and technology in addition to its problem-oriented research. Most of the technology developed for undersea operations within the Government will result from the Navy’s efforts. An important need is development of a test range equipped with standardized stations at which components, systems, concepts, and materials can be critically tested. Such a range will be an expensive undertaking, though of great value to private industry and university research. We there- fore recommend that a supporting role of the Navy should be provision of test facilities that are open to scientific and technological com- munities. Users would be expected to pay a prorated share of operat- ing costs and depreciation, as is the case in other national facilities (see secs. 4.7, 5.5). The Navy has maintained good relations with the academic oceano- graphic community, and, in turn, the community has frequently re- sponded to the Navy’s needs in rapid and effective manner. The suc- cessful bomb recovery operations off the Spanish coast are a recent, dramatic but typical example of this cooperation. Long-term support of academic oceanography through the ONR has been fruitful in the past, and we recommend that the Navy continue these programs (see sec. 5.4). The total Navy commitment to ocean science and technology has almost doubled in fiscal year 1965-67, yet Navy support of basic research has remained constant. This situation cannot continue if the Navy is to make adequate use of new developments in ocean science and technology; therefore, the Panel recommends that Navy support of basic research in the oceans increase at a rate consonant with the total Navy program in ocean science and technology (see sec. 5.4). Marine Food Resources. In the civilian sector economic analyses— admittedly crude because of lack of adequate data and previous analy- ses—suggest that activities related to improved weather prediction and the near-shore environment can be justified on economic grounds (see sec. 7.2). Nosimilar economic justification for development of marine food resources exists; however, the Panel recommends that develop- ment of marine food resources be given very high priority for other vitally important reasons (see secs. 2.2, 2.4, 11.1). A great public health problem is protein deficiency (it is the leading cause of death in the period between weaning and 5 years of age in certain countries). Proper long-range development of marine food resources requires numerous studies in marine biology. The protein- deficiency problem is so acute that efforts should be made to bypass the requirement for detailed understanding of means to obtain more food from the sea. New advances in development of marine food can greatly alleviate this problem, and we recommend expansion and improvement in technology for developing these resources and Government ap- proval for human use of marine protein concentrate (see sec. 2.4). x Emphasis should be placed on development of this technology for ex- port to underdeveloped countries in which malnutrition exists. A program for the development of marine food resources offers a major opportunity for substantive international cooperation. Several countries, including Japan, U.S.S.R., and Norway, have advanced technologies for fishing. An international effort to further this tech- nology and expand it to other marine food resources for the benefit of underdeveloped nations could be of major importance in achieving peace on earth. Such a program might be developed through auspices of the United Nations. Preserving the Near-Shore Environment. Almost half our popu- lation lives near the margins of the oceans or the Great Lakes. The near-shore environment is thus of critical importance. This environ- ment is being modified rapidly, by human activities, in ways that are unknown in detail but broadly are undesirable (see secs. 3, 6.4). Pollution, which renders beaches unsafe for swimmers, destroys valu- able fisheries and generally degrades the coastline, is the chief modi- fication. This problem is urgent, and dangers have not been ade- quately recognized. Specific recommendations cannot be made for solution of this serious problem because the research to date has been largely ineffectual. Therefore, the Panel recommends intensification of research in the area of pollution and pollution control. Recommendations with regard to marine biology affect both the long-range goal of increasing marine food resources and preserving the near-shore environment. Specific recommendations are: 1. Intensive multidisciplinary studies of biological communities in marine habitats subject to human influence and exploitation. Such studies should include estuaries and the continental shelf. A very important, special case is the proposed sea level canal to join the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (see secs. 3.3, 6.4). 2. Establishment of marine wilderness preserves to provide a base- line for future studies (see sec. 3.4). 3. Construction of facilities needed for studying organisms in special marine environments such as the deep sea and tropics (see sec. 10.7). 4, Increased encouragement and support of identification and use of marine organisms as tools for biomedical research and as potential sources of drugs (see sec. 6.4). 5. Establishment of a national center for collection, maintenance, and distribution of living marine organisms for use in marine and biological research (see sec. 10.7). Unity of Environmental Sciences. Throughout its investigations the Panel has been impressed by the unity of environmental sciences. Methods of investigation, intellectual concepts and ways of analyzing data are remarkably alike in oceanography, meteorology and solid- earth geophysics. Educational, industrial, and governmental orga- XI nizations for the most part have not taken advantage of this unity in developing their programs. The Panel’s recommendations have been influenced to a large extent by similarities among these fields (see sec. 6). Research in Oceanography. The Panel finds that much research effort in marine biology and physical oceanography during the last 10 years has concerned surveys of the ocean, measuring “classical” quan- tities. Such surveys were important 50 and even 20 years ago in defining problems; however, the subject has advanced to the stage that well-defined problems are known to exist. The Panel recom- mends that emphasis be shifted from surveys to solutions of these problems (see sec. 6). In section 6 a number of problems related to physical oceanography and marine biology are considered. A prob- lem of great importance in physical oceanography both because of intrinsic scientific interest and possible contributions to security and commerce within the oceans is that of oceanic weather, weather being defined as fluctuations of temperature, pressure and current over a wide range of time and length scales. Major progress in this area can result from implementation of any of several buoy programs pro- posed heretofore. The Panel therefore recommends initiation of a step-by-step buoy program from detailed studies of limited regions to larger scale studies. A step-by-step program is necessary because buoy technology is not well developed (see secs. 6.3, 4.9, and app. IT). Development of undersea technology will depend on understanding the boundary between the oceans and the solid earth. Recent studies show that physical processes at this boundary are complex, and there is little understanding of them. The Panel recommends that high priority be given to benthic-boundary study (see sec. 6.3). Education in Oceanography. Oceanographic education has been narrowly conceived and does not adequately recognize the importance of fundamental sciences in the subject’s long-range development. The intellectual isolation of many oceanographic institutions needs to be corrected. Attempts should be made to associate oceanographic insti- tutions with groups of universities to permit easy access by scientists and engineers throughout the country for work in ocean activities. The Panel questions the wisdom of granting Ph. D.’s in oceanography per se and feels education should be focused on a broad spectrum of environmental sciences, incorporating basic sciences. Many of the most active contributors to oceanography entered from. other fields. This practice should be encouraged in the future, perhaps through special efforts in developing postdoctoral programs in oceanography (see secs. 9.1, 9.2, 9.3). As activities in the oceans increase, it is clear that there will be interaction between those interested in the science and technology of XII the sea and those interested in legal, social, and economic aspects. We therefore recommend establishment and funding of Marine Study Centers to examine a wide range of problems associated with activi- ties in the sea but not to be degree-granting organizations (see sec. 9.5). Research is particularly needed on economic aspects of ocean science and technology. Ships for Oceanographic Research. v — a¢ n, 7 - a = | 7 4 a 7 - ; -@ at, 'Y 2 oe | a impe® s a} il ¥ a ig “wi 7 ceo ot i} agvespaaiess: Ae pe ‘i — _ 7 J - oa ; = 11° + 7 a Ww a = ~ + Anes es eos j a ce - a ’ - Fn . - re = oe rr _ t 1% SH _ rs ¥ os] 9 r 7 = as ae Pee day a 6 (ane Sl tee aude Neng 7 id tele 8 a a ; yf apc a4 : ; ee eee ) ep een peel 6 = Sst? Sa °° Ge shaves ee Semtee o 4 GAS coe “a a: Se rial 2° on #36 L, HS Sear ™ =< 5 > ste - op ne har 6 tat cups seme 14+ 1 pn CE, VR te: pbeaicAs cr = aertita | = ae 7 5h wre AS Ow ee ae arr oon jy s a 1.0. Introduction A number of reports have been written about. the oceans and their vast resources. This report differs in that it views oceanography, broadly defined, as those activities in the ocean having significant scientific and technological content. The report is concerned with the marine activities of the Nation and how these activities contribute to the national well-being. Opportunities for the future are identi- fied and discussed. However, the relative importance of these oppor- tunities can be judged only when the national goals for the total ocean program are clearly defined. 1.1. GOALS FOR A NATIONAL OCEAN PROGRAM Goals for a national ocean program must, of course, be based on marine interests of the United States. These interests are threefold: social, economic, and strategic. Science and technology supports these three concerns. Marine science interests of the United States, which are shared by scientists around the world, involve observation, description and un- derstanding of physical, chemical, and biological phenomena of the marine environment. Once adequately served by conventional ocean- ography, today marine science converges with meteorology and solid- earth geophysics so that consolidation into environmental science is required for progress in both research and education. This conver- gence is most advanced in programs aimed at environmental long-range prediction, modification, and control. Similarly, technological—or engineering—needs of many environ- mental science programs are so extensive that the line between marine science and ocean engineering must be largely abolished, in practice if not in theory, if many important projects are to proceed effectively. Marine economic interests of the United States entail shipping, food, minerals, and recreation. As on land, complex, interacting factors affect the profitability of efforts to exploit the seas’ resources: access to markets, legal ownership of resources, availability of relevant tech- nology and capital, strength of competition, safety of operations, and inadvertent or uncontrolled interference from other human activities such as waste disposal or warfare. Despite the many uncertainties, 220-659 O—66——2 1 developments detailed later in the report indicate that American in- dustry may well be poised on the edge of what could, during the next 10 to 20 years, become a major, profitable advance into the marine environment. Strategic marine interests of the United States have both military and nonmilitary aspects. Whereas the military aspect is both long standing and relatively familiar, the nonmilitary aspect is less well known and stems primarily from two developments of quite recent times: 2 1. The decreasing likelihood of a direct military confrontation be- tween the United States and a highly industrialized nation such as Russia over territorial disputes, due to the unacceptable risk of mutual nuclear annihilation. 2. The increasing worldwide importance of more food, especially for underdeveloped nations, and the apparent possibility of a major breakdown of the world food economy within perhaps 20 years. The first development strongly suggests that where competition develops for the acquisition of ocean resources such as fish, minerals, or even the right of passage, such nonmilitary factors as prior presence cr continued use will in some contexts be decisive in determining the outcome. The second development indicates a potential value that transcends mere monetary considerations of marine food resources for underde- veloped nations. Food from the sea offers at least temporary and local relief from exhausting efforts to feed increasing populations. The United States interest in these efforts is not only humanitarian, but is also national because of the worldwide political and social stability expected asa consequence. The strategic importance of food resources suggests a new focus for part of the national program. These social, economic, and strategic marine interests interwoven and rapidly evolving in a context which includes similarly developing marine interests of other nations, seem to require establishment of a more comprehensive national program framework than is usually im- plied by the term, “oceanography,” or is contemplated by any single, existing agency’s missions. 223222240 140 Prawnsees= ss 25a 46 Wild fishes ssa 23 North Sea, W9222 22222025222 See | T=) 0 eae On aR 21.3 World marine fishery 3_____________]____- (0 0 ree es oar cea 0. 45 PAV ATi ea G1 CS eee ee ee ee et [Ed ee CO eee Be) Pet 4.6 Middle Atlantic Continental Shelf 4_|_____ dol sete 2 ae 61.9 Humboldt Current, Peru ®_________ Anchovy=o2..20-22- 300 Chesapeake Bay 5 oyster bottom____| Oyster_____________ 600 Sea water, fertilized: 2 Fishponds, Formosa___________---_- IMO Stas a 1, 000 Brackish water, fertilized: Experimental fish farm, Palestine___| Carp_--_-_-_-----_- 755-7, 970 Commercial ponds, Palestine_-_---__|---_-- doe fees eee 356-4, 210 Land: Cultivated land__............--- SWIG sae. Sone 450 Grneniand 2 052.652 eee es Cattle sate = ee se 5-250 1 Data unless otherwise indicated from C. H. Mortimer and C. F. Hickling, ‘‘Fertilizers in Fishponds.”’ Fishery Pub. No. 5, 1957. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. 2 Ponds constructed so that sea water can enter through gates. Gates can be closed to contain fish. 3C. L. Cutting. Economic aspects of utilization of fish. Biochemical Society Symposium No. 6. Bio- chemical Society. Cambridge, England. 4 Range of values for selected ocean areas listed by H. W. Graham and R. L. Edwards. 1961. Fish in nutrition. 5J. L. McHugh. In press. In Symposium on Estuaries. American Association for Advancement of Science. 6M. B. Schaefer. 1965. Transactions American Fisheries Society. Vol. 94, pp. 123-128. is informative to make some calculations concerning potential oyster production in these areas. If 600 pounds were produced per acre, the yield in Japan and in Chesapeake Bay under natural conditions, then the total U.S. production would be 6 billion pounds annually or about equal to the present U.S. fish catch (table 2.2). If the pro- duction rate in these areas were increased 15 times, the yield would be 90 billion pounds a year or nearly equal the present world fish catch. A 15-fold increase does not seem unrealistic since the Japanese have increased yields as much as 50-fold. The yield of oysters is appar- ently limited by their food supply. If production of suitable kinds of phytoplankton could be increased by artificial fertilization (see 13 sec, 6.4), even greater yields might be realized or greater areas might become available for exploitation. Shrimp and Crab. A successful method has been developed in Japan to culture large prawns. It requires indoor culturing of new- born larvae which are fed first on diatoms and then on tiny brine shrimp. Ina month the larvae are almost an inch long and are ready to be cultivated in artificial ponds formerly used for salt production. Adults are produced in 1 year by being fed ground shellfish and scrap fish. The present complex technique is commercially profitable in Japan because the Japanes gourmet is willing to pay $2 to $4 per pound for live shrimp. For similar size shrimp, the U.S. fisherman receives from 50 to 80 cents per pound for the tails alone. This is the first commercial trial in Japan, and cheaper cultivation techniques will undoubtedly be found. The complete life cycles of several species of crabs are known in the United States, opening the way for artificial cultivation. Attempts are now underway to rear spiny lobsters in Japan. Squid. Squid are a delicacy for the Japanese and Mediterranean peoples. In Japan five species of squid are cultured in the laboratory. Growth in culture is faster than in nature; commercial squid weighing a pound or more are obtained in 3 to 5 months. Probably, more rapid growth can be obtained by further refinement of techniques and by continuous feeding. It is interesting that squid can be reared and maintained alive for months in captivity, whereas captured adults die in a few weeks. Phytoplankton Production. Since organic productivity rests on the energy-trapping ability of the plants in the sea, basic and applied research on the ecology of ocean pastures should be fostered. This research is needed if selected areas of the sea are to be farmed. Mass culturing of marine phytoplankton is feasible because the main nutritional requirements are known. It should be possible to produce large quantities of phytoplankton in lagoons and artificial coastal lakes. Algae could also be grown in floating plastic tanks or in gigantic submerged plastic sausages. Basic requirements for growing algae are ponds or large containers and relatively small amounts of nutrients to. add to the water. Phytoplankton production under controlled conditions is essential for development of marine aquiculture. Many economically important organisms feed on phytoplankton either throughout life (e.g., oysters and clams) or during early stages of development (newborn shrimp larvae eat phytoplankton and later become carnivorous). Algae are also needed for food for the shrimplike creatures which constitute the bulk of the zooplankton—the food of many economically important marine animals. 14 Research is needed to identify algal species having high food values and rapid growth rates. Preliminary research indicates that manip- ulation of growth conditions and nutrients can induce accumulation of particular components altering, for instance, the protein-fat ratio of algae. This metabolic flexibility, in addition to offering the pos- sibility of tailoring composition to suit predators’ nutrition, may provide new means of obtaining high yields of fats, sterols, antibiotics, and vitamins (see sec. 6.4). 2.6. SUMMARY No one of the approaches outlined above will suffice. The total de- mand for animal protein by the world’s population cannot be met ade- quately for many years, probably not until the turn of the century when, it would be hoped, the world’s population will have been stabi- lized and agricultural and aquicultural technology will have had an opportunity to catch up. We cannot expect to close this gap unless we begin now. Clearly, the United States ie behind other nations in the tech- nology of fishing and aquiculture. Future food problems of the world require that we develop these technologies and assist other nations to develop them. The Panel assigns very high priority to this task and further notes that to foster the needed technology, at least in the early stages, will require support by the Federal Government, both in its own laboratories and in extramural institutions. 15 3.0. Modification of the Ocean Enviroment 3.1. INTRODUCTION Man can and does interfere with the oceans and atmosphere in a number of different ways, thus, in a sense environmental modification is already a reality. In oceans, man’s ability to produce deliberate, beneficial changes is still very limited. For example, he can attempt to alter the configuration of the coastline, although the results are not always predictable. Besides deliberate modification, there is the in- advertent modification in which we know man is participating to an increasing extent, but the consequences are too little known. 3.2. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS “The Nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased and not im- paired in value.”—President Theodore Roosevelt. “Our conservation must not be just classic protection and develop- ment, but a creative conservation of restoration and innovation.”— President Lyndon B. Johnson, in his message on Natural Beauty. Today, as nearly a century ago, the Federal Government recognizes the need to treat our natural resources as assets. As the complexity of society increases, it becomes more difficult to protect, preserve, and conserve these resources. Programs are needed for marine as well as terrestrial, atmospheric, and fresh water environments. Continuing population growth combined with increased dependence on the sea for food and recreation means that modification of marine environments will not only continue, but will drastically increase. New technological developments such as atomic power reactors, sea level canals, weather modification and desalinization plants lead to new forms of modification. We are far from understanding most short- range and all long-range biological consequences of environmental modification. These considerations suggest that we now need to preserve the quality of as much of the unmodified or useful marine environment as we can and to restore the quality of as much of the damaged en- vironment as possible. Delay will only increase the cost in money, time, manpower, resources, and missed opportunities. 16 3.3. SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS Inadvertent modification occurs in many forms. The most widely spread and most pervasive ones are various kinds of pollution. Pol- lutants include garbage, sewage, agricultural and industrial wastes, pesticide and herbicide residues, and waste heat. Future pollutants may include radioactive waste from nuclear reactors and salt wastes from desalinization plants. The marine environment is particularly susceptible to pollution be- cause most avenues of disposal terminate in the oceans. In the past, pollution of the oceans has been of little concern because the oceans have always been considered so large. However, most pollution occurs at the margins where human activities are centered and the concen- trated wastes remain for varying times in this region before dispersal into the vast open ocean. Moreover, the potential for pollution is in- creasing as more of man’s activity is concerned with the oceans. It was once thought that rivers could not be polluted seriously, but the truth is now obvious. It is also becoming evident that large bodies of water such as the Great Lakes can be drastically altered and reduced in value as natural assets. We have paid a great price to learn these lessons and should not make similar mistakes as we inhabit and exploit the oceans. Fishing and other means of harvesting plant and animal popula- tions have produced dramatic changes in distribution and abundance of marine organisms. Classical cases in this category are found among the marine mammals: especially baleen whales in the Antarctic ; blue California gray whales; sea otters; fur seals, and southern and northern elephant seals. Habitat destruction by improper fishing techniques have affected our biological resources. An example of the latter is oysterbed destruction. Introduction of organisms into areas has sometimes been extremely successful and valuable. Atlantic oyster culture in Nantucket and Martha’s Vinyard sounds off Cape Cod and importing Japanese seed oysters to the Pacific Northwest are examples. In other cases intro- ductions have been disastrous. Predatory Japanese snails introduced into the Black Sea in 1949 virtually eliminated mussel populations and apparently caused a sharp decline in flounder fisheries. Introductions have been planned or inadvertent. A great number of inadvertent introductions into the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans may result from opening the proposed sea-level canal across Central America. De- liberate modification of the coastline, such as channel dredging for marinas, shoreline modification for beach stabilization and filling in marsh areas for developmental purposes, Pose serious problems. These modifications are occurring in estuaries which are important natural resources for recreation and food production. These areas IEP 220-659 O—66——3 are the nursery gounds for many marine organisms. How severely these and other environmental alterations affect the biota is unknown. Finally, if weather modification becomes a reality, we can anticipate large-scale alteration of the marine environment in ways never pos- sible previously. Changes in rainfall patterns on the land, shifts in wind distribution and changes in air temperature may produce per- sistent changes in near-shore salinity distributions, in patterns of wind-driven currents ana in water temperature distribution. Subtle changes as far as man is concerned in the physical environment may greatly affect biological populations. Invasion of west Greenland waters by Atlantic codfish and probably the recent disappearance for commercial purposes of California sardines are examples of what may result from natural environmental fluctuations or a combination of natural and manmade effects. 3.4. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE Five courses of action should be undertaken by the Federal Government: 1. Establish a system of marine wilderness preserves as an extension to marine environments of the basic principle established in the Wilder- ness Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-577) that “it is the policy of the Con- gress to secure for the American people of present and future genera- tions the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.” In the pres- ent context, specific reasons for such preserves include: (a) Provision of ecological baselines against which to compare modified areas. (6) Preservation of major types of unmodified habitats for research and education in marine sciences. (ce) Provision of continuing opportunities for marine wilder- ness recreation. 2. Undertake large-scale efforts to maintain and restore the quality of marine environments. Goals of these efforts should include increas- ing food production and recreational opportunities and furthering research and education in marine sciences. A multiple-use concept should be evolved for marine environments analogous to that used for many Federal land areas (see Public Law 88-607, sec. 5B). It should be emphasized that this concept includes the recognition that for some areas, such as wilderness, only one use is possible. 3. Increase research on biological effects of present and anticipated marine-environment modifications. This research should take into account local, reversible, small-scale effects and large-scale, essentially irreversible, regional effects. Efforts should be made to predict bio- logical effects of proposed or planned modifications so the effects can be assessed and evaluated prior to modification. 18 4. Increase research on application of biological knowledge to rectify and alleviate undesirable consequences of environmental alteration. Solutions could lead to positive assets. For example, growing shell- fish and other organisms in marine waters fertilized by effluents from sewage treatment plants would improve water quality, and the orga- nisms could be used as animal-food supplements or as fertilizer for plant crops. 5. Insure that possible biological consequences are considered in planning environmental modification affecting marine environments, especially but not only for weather modification. Obviously, the long- term as well as the short-term effects of environmental alterations should be considered in this context. 3.5. SUMMARY Man’s ability to modify and alter the marine environment necessi- tates (1) establishment of a system of marine wilderness preserves, (2) large-scale efforts to restore and maintain the quality of already damaged environments, (3) increased research into possible biological effects of environmental modification, and (4) advance consideration of biological effects of proposed programs that might cause environ- mental modifications. 19 4.0. Undersea Technology Developments in undersea technology traditionally have resulted from: 1. Navy operational requirements. 2. Industrial attempts to create new business opportunities in and under the ocean. 3. Government-supported developmental efforts aimed at pro- viding a higher level of services to ocean-based users.? This division reflects the apportioning of responsibilities into: 1. National security. 2. Commercial exploitation. 3. Government-provided service. This division of responsibility has proven successful in the past, and it will be a good pattern for the future. Accordingly, our appraisal of technology assumes a continuing role of present participants (see sec. 10.2.) The following survey and appraisal of future opportunities is lim- ited to undersea operations in the nonmilitary sector. The Navy’s problems and roles are discussed in section 5, while problems in food production from the sea are considered in section 2. For purposes of this discussion, we consider “technology” to be the proven, existing capability whether or not the hardware is commercially available. Our review of the status of undersea technology, as well as this Panel’s overall recommendations, was greatly aided by results of a conference held September 20-23, 1965, involving Government and industry under the auspices of the Ocean Science and Technology Ad- visory Committee of the National Security Industrial Association. The conference was held at the request of the PSAC Panel on Oceanog- raphy and the Chairman of ICO. The conference report, together with a list of attendees, is given in appendix III. +The intense and continuing government-industry interest in undersea tech- nology is indicated by a few representative references: ‘Proceedings, Govern- ment-Industry Oceanographic Instrumentation Symposium,” ICO, 1961; “Ocean Engineering,” 6 vols. R. D. Terry, editor, published by North American Aviation in response to request from Chairman of ICO, 1964; ‘Buoy Technology,” trans- eript of Marine Technology Society Symposium, 1964. 20 4.1. MATERIALS A continuing need exists to provide vehicles with large working volumes at atmospheric pressures to protect instruments, equipment and personnel deep below the ocean. In 1966 we are limited to usmg HY80 and maraging steels for the pressure containers. By 1970 high-strength titanium alloys will be commercially available, and in the 1975-80 period high-strength glass and cast ceramics will come into general use. Rapid progress is also being made in composite and fiber-reinforced materials. The materials problem is difficult, and progress will be slow because of testing requirements; but solutions required for ocean applications are definitely on the way and should be available in time to accomplish missions which the Panel foresees. 4.2. INSTRUMENTS AND TOOLS Navigational Problems. A need exists in the mineral industry to locate a point on the surface with an accuracy of : 1. 30 feet from a stationary ship within sight of land in order to exploit an entire lease or other mining claim without leaving a 150-foot (or more) border around the claim. 2. 150 feet from a stationary ship on the high seas in order to locate and return to a point accurately. 3. Ultimately 30 feet when underway for survey and research applications. The best available commercial navigational equipment when utilized within sight of shore gives an accuracy of about 150 feet. It is pos- sible today, by using extreme care from a stationary ship, to better this, but it is expensive because it requires precision geodesy to locate reference points and perfectly tuned beacons coupled with good con- ditions. Several systems including optical radar are under develop- ment which have not had sufficient testing to be operational and for which commercial equipment will not be available in less than 3 to 5 years. Within 10 years surface navigational accuracy of better than 100 feet underway will be available. 4.3. POSITIONING PROBLEMS Drilling and construction activities require the ability to locate a bottom point to a position of better than 10 feet when referred to a point on the surface in the same vicinity. Depending upon the depth of water and currents beneath the ship, conventional plumb-bob techniques provide adequate accuracy for determining bottom positions on a relative basis. On occasion, how- ever, it is desirable, having located the specific spot on the bottom, to 21 return precisely to it. In the case of deep drilling, MOHOLE re- search and development indicate that we can reenter deep-line drill holes if we plan in advance to do so. The MOHOLE techniques are good for this purpose, but are too expensive for conventional needs such as oil wells. Humble Oil Co., in the Gulf of Mexico, has demonstrated an accu- racy of precision in location by drilling to within a few feet of a 10- inch diameter pipe from a horizontal distance of 1 mile. This was necessary to cap a ruptured well by slant drilling and plugging with concrete. Although cost of surveying and guiding the drill was high, it was a remarkable feat of technology to do the job at all, even in shallow water. 4.4. IDENTIFICATION OF OBJECTS In clear water under ideal conditions presently available optical im- age systems can give resolutions on the order of 1 inch at a range of 150 to 3,000 feet. An important technological need is high-resolution imagemaking in turbid water. Some acoustical image systems in research today will not be available even as initial models for 2 or 3 years. The Panel esti- mates that within 10 years it will be possible to achieve resolution in turbid water using acoustical systems on the order of 10 feet in the range of 3,000 feet. While this is adequate to conduct surveillance under many conditions, it requires too close an approach for reconnais- sance and adequate identification of many important objects. Pres- ently there does not seem to be any good solution to the underwater visibility problem. What is needed is acquisition of 10-foot objects at 1 to 5 miles with a resolution of roughly 1 foot at a mile in muddy water. The development of adequate acoustical imaging systems will require the application of the most advanced optical imaging techniques. 4.5. TOOLS PROBLEM As yet little has been done to make available the kinds of instruments and tools which would change the scope and nature of work performed by divers on the ocean floor. Examples of such devices are: 1. Nondestructive testing equipment to determine diagnostically the acceptability of components of bottom-mounted structures. A simple problem is reliability of a weld or porosity of a tube. 9. Tactile manipulators which give the diver (or ultimately the instrument-working platform) added strength and sensing abilities. 3. Semi-remote-control powered tools and support structures. 22 4.6. SERVICES On land, Government traditionally provides many highly technical services for a wide variety of uses. We believe that these same serv- ices should be supplied to support ocean-going operations. The Panel has attempted to identify a most pressing technical need as seen by the users of these services. Surveys. Good topographic and geologic surveys are needed. These surveys should first extend to the Continental Shelf of the Unit- ed States. Second priority is given to other continental shelves, third priority to the deep ocean off the United States, and fourth rank to other deep-ocean areas. A major problem is to reduce the time and cost of surveying without reducing precision of the final result. Using the best systems available today, it takes a single mothership plus small boats and a full crew an entire summer to chart the Martha’s Vineyard-Nantucket Sound. It is uneconomical to consider doing the continental shelf of the world in this way. There are conceivably three ways of improving the technology of these surveys: 1. Development of a surface ship with much improved sensory equipment. This ship should be capable of taking differential data rapidly so that changes would be measured carefully, while data which vary slowly will be taken at a much slower rate. Both data taken and reduction should be automated so that final charts are produced in the original surveys. Present methods involving hand recording of many results indicate that this field is hampered by tradition. 2. Development of a submersible to carry out surveys. The submersible would do the entire job of maneuvering, sensing, data- taking, and reduction, thereby improving the accuracy of bottom topography and bypassing the surface-speed limitation which re- sults from noise-suppression requirements. A major difficulty in such a scheme is accurate positioning of the submersible. 3. Development of towed or surface-commanded, free sub- merged platform to travel within perhaps 50 feet of the ocean sur- face. The towed body could be manned. Today’s technology is adequate to build some sort of towed-body system, and the general opinion of industry is that by 1975 we can do bathymetry better, quicker, and more economically with submersibles than by follow- ing the present route. In addition to the technological problems, topographic surveying 1s hampered by strict adherence to international conventions developed at a time when the technology was more primitive than it is today. Adequate surveying for the future will require a more realistic cou- pling of international convention with technolgy. 23 Forecasting. Ocean users inform us that we are not obtaining necessary weather data. The Michaelangelo incident provides one dramatic example of the need for short-term forecasts in the open oceans. The recent destruction of the British petroleum platform, with the resulting loss of 11 lives, has created new concern among un- dersea oil exploration companies. The basic problem in such sea op- erations is getting people off the rig when storms come. Large storms such as hurricanes take a long time to develop and are not as dangerous as more local storms having a shorter time scale. Present technology requires surface-mounted platforms, and users badly need data regard- ing predictions of wave height and local storms. Lacking these data, oil companies are presently designing platforms to operate from 50 to 150 feet below the surface of the sea, away from the weather. The consensus of oil companies is that by 1975, if technology is available, most stationary installations will be on the bottom of the sea, not on the surface. Most drilling will probably be conducted from the surface, but 011 well operations and some temporary storage facilities will be on the bottom. Presently, we do not have the tech- nology needed for building installations on the ocean floor, but oil companies are determined to obtain it. They have estimated that about 10 years will be required to develop the technology and operat- ing experience. 4.7. STANDARDS Very few data and still fewer primitive, engineering standards now exist for underwater operations. If there is to be any substantial construction activity on the ocean floor as has been suggested, the fol- lowing types of data and information must be provided: 1. An engineering characteristic for a variety of important bottom conditions to include standardized tests and their inter- pretation. 2. Environmental data on the water column (this is essentially the “weather in the sea” problem) and the relationship of water- column dynamics to bottom conditions. 3. Engineering standards for designing bottom-mounted struc- tures in light of “‘sea-weather” data. The Panel believes that in developing engineering standards for design and use in undersea installations, it is desirable to utilize com- petent, existing standard-making organizations. The Navy, the American Bureau of Shipping, and the American Standards Asso- ciation Center should be the core of undersea standard-making activi- ties. Specifically, the Panel does not recommend forming a new organization for the promulgation of engineering standards in the ocean environment. 24 One particular standard problem deserves mention. The Navy is presently the only organization equipped to certify submersibles. To date the Navy has certified only one such vehicle. Since the national requirement for developing deep-submergence capability in the next decade is clearly a Navy role, the Panel recommends that the Navy be the only agent to certifiy submersibles until undersea standardmaking organizations can develop the required competence and willingness to assume this responsibility. The needs of industry for understanding bottom conditions and for describing weather within the sea in large measure parallel oppor- tunities for scientific research discussed in sections 6.2 and 6.3. 4.8. SURF ZONE AND BEACH ENGINEERING PROBLEMS The Nation needs to improve the technology for constructing coastal zone structures, which will make the national expenditure on break- waters, harbors, beach erosion, docks, etc., more effective. The Panel was distressed to find a high failure rate of construction projects in the surf zone and on beaches, the destruction of beaches by break- waters designed to extend the beaches, the silting of harbors and marinas as a result of construction designed to provide shelter, and the enhancement of wave action by the building of jetties supposed to lessen wave erosion are but a few examples of the inadequacy of our knowledge and practice in coastal construction. The Panel did not have sufficient time to draw major conclusions about these efforts but does offer the following observations: 1. The small budget of CERC (Coastal Engineering Research Center) cannot possibly underwrite the research and development program which is required to devise engineering techniques neces- sary for solving the difficult construction problems presented by the surf zone and beaches. 2. Engineering schools have been remiss in not participating in this problem through research projects proposed for governmental support. 3. The opportunity exists in many fine graduate departments in civil engineering and mechanical engineering to develop courses or specialty options which would lead to significantly higher levels of understanding and performance in near-shore construction projects, most of which are performed using public funds. The university community should undertake responsibility for see- ing that the best modern, engineering practice is being applied to publicly funded and executed surf zones and _ beach-construction projects. 25 4.9. BUOYS Several scientific problems discussed in section 6.3 require deep- ocean buoys. In addition enhancement of weather-prediction capa- bility will be in part based on observations from buoys. Thus, it is fortunate that buoy technology is developing rapidly. Buoys have been tethered and maintained in the deep sea for as long as 18 months. Buoy data can be tape recorded and telemetered on command from buoys to ship, to shore, and to satellite installations. The Panel be- lieves it should be technically possible by 1975 to mount a World Weather Watch using buoys as sensing stations. This will not be pos- sible, however, unless we soon begin to gather statistical experience with buoys. Too much effort has been expended, in the Panel’s opin- ion, on obtaining an advanced buoy technology in a single step rather than in a broader program. There are also too many proposals for federally sponsored, buoy-experimental programs. What is required is a well-planned, evolutionary buoy-development program aimed at an operational World Weather Watch beginning in the 1975-80 time period.” 4.10. NEW LIGHTWEIGHT, COMPACT POWERPLANT At present American undersea vehicles possess only an “elevator” capability. Purists may object to this statement, but the recent Spanish coast search operations force this conclusion. A small sys- tem of limited mobility would require a powerplant producing 10-100 kw. It seems reasonable that such a power system based on a fuel cell could be developed and be operational by 1975 if it were given sufficient priority by the Navy. For larger vehicles cruising at modest speeds (greater than 10 knots) for long times (weeks), however, it will be necessary to have reactor power sources in the 1-10 mw range. It is generally agreed that the present water reactor cannot be reduced in weight below 85 pounds per kilowatt where less than 50 pounds per kilowatt is required for the mission. No reactor technology which can meet this need is currently available, and in the Panel’s view no private group is likely to undertake such a development during the 1965-80 time period. The Panel does not believe that serious consideration should be given to concepts such as deep-ocean airplanes in the next decade. It will stretch our technology to the limit to build a versatile mobile platform from which two or three men can perform useful work in deep oceans. >See app. II for a developmental program designed to use increasing buoy- system capacity to solve several scientific problems. 26 4.11. MAN IN THE SEA Marine construction and maintenance operations in 1966 require free divers. The opinion of oil company staffs is that free divers will continue to be used where they can be put down and provided with tools to do useful work. Since oil and mining companies expect by 1975 that some operations will be conducted at depths byeond 1,500 feet, there will be a transition from divers to unmanned vehicles or manned instrumental platforms. Oil industry needs clearly show many potential uses for man in the sea. Other users have requirements that demand a capability for men to live and work beneath the surface for extended periods. This capability may lead to new opportunities in the production of food either by fishing or aquiculture. Further, the interest of national security may make it necessary or strategically desirable to occupy areas of the oceans for extended periods. Major groups of problems are associated with man living and work- ing beneath the surface of the sea: 1. Problems directly related to survival, including biomedical problems and hazards from marine organisms. 2. Problems associated with design and operation of facilities for working while underwater. Certain of these problems have been considered earlier in this report. Biomedical problems of survival are divisible into several categories. Most immediate are those produced directly by the wet, cold, dark, high-pressure climate. These include but are not restricted to an increased resistance to breathing during exertion and at rest; central nervous system narcosis by nitrogen and probably any other inert gas; long, slow decompression necessary for safe elimination of ex- cessive inert gas from the tissues; toxicity of oxygen at high pressure; loss of body heat during prolonged submergence; and complex inter- actions of these factors. As the duration of man’s underwater stay increases, additional problems appear. These include man’s nutri- tional requirements under these rigorous conditions, composition and palatability of foods, psychological behavior of isolation and crowd- ing in small spaces, and impairment of speech by unusual atmospheres. Medical procedures, including action of drugs on man in the sea, also require study. The similarity of certain of these problems to manned spaceflight is obvious, and advantage should be taken of this fact. The presence of other sea organisms constitutes yet another group of complications. In many marine environments a variety of orga- nisms are toxic if touched or eaten. Also, predatory forms such as sharks consider divers fair game. Human survival underwater thus requires solution of a multiplicity of problems. Current knowledge in most of these areas is at best 27 fragmentary; in some—especially long-term habitation problems—it is essentially nonexistent. Current research activity, directly appli- cable to oceangoing operations, is minimal in most of these areas. Men working underwater require a wide range of support facilities. These include various underwater vehicles, underwater chambers in which to live and shore facilities for studying the effects of high pres- sure. Shore facilities should perhaps include high-pressure chambers for studies on man and animals, with capabilities to stmulate depths of at least 1,000 feet. Facilities are needed to meet the problem outlined above. In no university or private institution in the United States is there an ex- tensive investigative program on the effects of very high pressures on man. The Navy is carrying out studies of man’s long-term ex- posure to depths, but investigations are not primarily concerned with basic physiological effects at high pressure. Research of this type requires teams of trained specialists in medicine and biology and might best be conducted by a university medical center (see sec. 10.7). The Panel does not foresee the need for a diver-operating capability in depths beyond 1,000 feet before 1975. At greater depths the diver will be replaced with highly instrumented platforms capable of ma- neuvering sensing devices, communicating with the surface and per- forming useful work. The technology being developed for space application may contribute substantially to unmanned operations at depth. Very likely these platforms will be manned and will require containers at atmospheric pressure. 4.12. MARINE MINING The possibility of mining the sea floor has caught the popular imagination because of numerous articles and speeches about the po- tential riches of the sea. Mineral resources certainly exist under the oceans, but their economic potential varies enormously, depending on depth, location, and geological setting. Accordingly, we distinguish three general classes of minerals: Surface deposits on the shallow con- tinental shelves; bulk deposits within the rocks under the shelves; and deposits on and in thin sediment layers of the deep sea floor (see also app. III.4). The surface ore deposits of the Continental Shelf are mainly of two types, placer ores concentrated in submerged river channels and beaches and blanketing layers of nodules such as phosphorite, precipi- tated from sea water. ‘These types of ores have been mined in various places around the world. Examples are: diamonds off Africa; tin off southeastern Asia; iron ores off Japan; and gold in many places. An attempt to mine phosphorite off California was apparently frus- trated by a concentration of unexploded naval shells. Various coun- 28 tries have encouraged development of these ores by surveying their continental shelves. The Union of South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia, among others, have conducted or supported mineral sur- veys of the shelf. The United States is in the initial stages of such surveying, and we recommend that this program be accelerated. This is in line with our general recommendation that the Federal Govern- ment provide the same service in support of industry on the conti- nental shelves as it does on land (see sec. 10.2). Development of new capabilities in undersea technology recommended in this report should greatly enhance the economic potential of mineral deposits discovered by Government surveys. Geologically, rocks under the Continental Shelf differ in no sig- nificant manner from those of the adjacent continent. Hence, they probably contain the same mineral deposits. This has been confirmed by widespread exploitation of oil and gas. Ina few places, moreover, mines have been extended from land under the sea. However, the economic potential of solid-mineral deposits within the submerged rock of the shelf appears minimal. The Geological Survey is deter- mining the general structure of this submerged continental margin, and we recommend that this work be accelerated in order to bring it to the same level as geological mapping on land. The deep-sea floor (under 2 or 3 miles of water) is paved in many places with nodules containing manganese, iron, cobalt, copper, and nickel in concentrations which approach the mineable levels on land. The potential resource is enormous, but the economic or mineable potential is certainly much less. The distribution, nature, and origin of the nodules are the subject of research presently supported by the Federal Government. In addition several mining companies have conducted special surveys of apparently promising deposits of nodules discovered in the course of oceanographic research. We consider this to be an appropriate division of Government and private effort and see no requirement for accelerated research on potential mineral re- sources of the deep-sea floor. 5.0. Ocean Science and Technology and National Security 5.1. INTRODUCTION The most urgent aspect of Federal involvement in ocean science and technology for the next 5 to 10 years relates to national security in the narrow, strictly military sense. The U.S. Navy, which has responsibility for essentially all our defense efforts involving the ocean environment, will have increasing need for specialized oceanographic data for specific devices being developed or improved and will con- tinue to require better understanding of characteristics of the ocean environment in which it operates. In particular the Navy will need to improve the capabilities of its undersea strategic forces and ASW forces, as well as to increase its ability to perform undersea search and recovery. Improvement of the Navy’s capabilities in these areas depends heavily on our national ability to discover and exploit new knowledge in ocean science and on our success in developing new and relevant ocean technology. A1- though everyone is aware in a general sense that ocean knowledge has military implications, the underlying reasons may not be widely understood. The military importance of oceanography entails an understanding of the nature of our national security programs, which themselves are not always completely comprehended. Whereas the Navy’s involvement in oceanography because of se- curity and its often specialized interest will of necessity be distinct from that of other Government and private programs, the Navy must maintain working relations with all elements of the scientific and technological communities concerned. This relationship has been excellent in the past, correctly reflecting the Navy’s deep interest in oceanographic research, and it should be strengthened in the future. 5.2. VITAL NAVY MISSIONS HEAVILY DEPENDENT ON OCEAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Antisubmarine Warfare. The submarine threat to the United States has been and is expected to remain a very serious consideration in defense planning. The Soviet Union now has a massive submarine 30 force consisting both of nuclear and nonnuclear vessels. This force is being modernized and increased in size on an intense scale. Like- wise, mainland China has already built several submarines, and even small powers such as North Korea and Egypt have conventionally powered submarine forces. The massive Soviet submarine force threatens our naval forces and merchant shipping and its nuclear tipped missiles are capable of strik- ing the continental United States. A more modest Chinese submarine force may develop in the next few years. To counter the threat from the U.S.S.R. the U.S. Navy is now spending and will undoubtedly continue to spend several billion dollars annually in operating and de- veloping its antisubmarine forces. The effectiveness of these forces is limited in part by the incomplete understanding we have of environ- mental conditions in which antisubmarine sensors and weapon systems are employed. Considering the cost of operating our antisubmarine forces, an increase of a few percent in the effectiveness of these forces is worth several tens of millions of dollars a year. Sensors used for detection, classification, localization, and tracking of submarines include active and passive sonar, Magnetic Anomaly Detection (MAD) and radar working in a very complex ocean environ- ment. Their effectiveness depends heavily on environmental condi- tions in which they operate. We hardly have sufficient information on these conditions to do estimations and predictions sufficient for Navy needs. Sonar provides a good example of the problems the environment imposes on our ASW forces. Sonar, both active and passive, is now and will probably remain the most important sensor for antisubmarine warfare. It can be designed to utilize several modes of underwater sound propagation. The effectiveness of these modes for any given piece of equipment and in any given situation depends critically on such detailed characteristics of the immediate ocean environment as the speed of sound (index of refraction), variation with depth, and absorption and characteristics of the ocean bottom and surface. These characteristics vary with locations and with time at any given posi- tion. Therefore, detection and classification ranges of a particular sonar system may vary tremendously from one time to another and from one location to another. These peculiarities must be understood and exploited to a great degree if we are to make our ASW forces as effective as possible. The importance to ASW of a continuing, effective program to study and characterize the ocean environment in which its equipment is designed to operate cannot be overstated. Strategic Forces. Development of long-range ballistic missiles in the last decade caused a revolution in the method of waging strategic warfare. Starting in late 1953 the United States engaged in an ur- 31 gent program to build up its ballistic-missile forces. The U.S.S.R. embarked on the same kind of program even earlier. Missiles were originally contemplated as fixed devices on land. At roughly the same time, however, the Navy undertook a program to develop a nuclear submarine and mounted a highly concerted and highly inventive weapon systems’ development program to adapt ballistic missiles to it. The system, named Polaris, consists in essence of a small, solid rocket-ballistic missile launchable from a submerged nuclear submarine. Polaris, with a high degree of invulnerability, has become a fundamental building block for strategic forces. In- deed, a thought often expressed at the time was that ultimate nuclear stability would have both the U.S.S.R. and the United States equipped only with invulnerable Polaris forces and that neither side would have a ballistic-missile defense for population centers. In that way the out- come of a nuclear exchange would be clear and unmistakeable, and the possibility of a first nuclear strike even in critical times would be minimized. The effectiveness of the submarine-based missile force is highly contingent on concealment, dispersion, high mobility, and very long patrol time. It is precisely for this reason that key interests of ocean- ography and the Navy, reflected in the development of the submarine- based strategic-missile force, have so much in common. With this relationship in mind the Navy instituted a special program of long- range research support for academic oceanography and intensified field studies by its own laboratories and ships. Even so, oceanographic research needs continuous and vigorous support from the Navy. This research must cover on a massive scale the entire technological spectrum from basic and applied research to marine engineering. For example we must be able to verify that no presently unknown (to us) physical effects in the ocean environment make nuclear submarines susceptible to continuous tracking and location. Because of the pos- sible increased emphasis in our strategic-defense capabilities in terms of the Navy’s submarine-based missiles, and because this emphasis would only be well placed in the absence of any degradation of the submarines or of the enhancement of detection capability, the Navy must support a program which continuously explores all aspects of the ocean environment which conceivably could be exploited or utilized to allow continuous targeting of such submarines. If Polaris sub- marines could be continuously targeted, they would be open to premp- tive attack by ballistic missiles with relatively large warheads. As enemy missile accuracy improves and as enemy missile payloads become more sophisticated, concealment and mobility become relatively more important. As we become increasingly concerned with pene- trating enemy ballistic-missile defense, larger and more sophisticated payloads for our own strategic forces become increasingly important. 32 Development of the Poseidon Undersea Launching System will provide a significant improvement in our strategic capability in this regard. However, we can look forward to the need for even greater strategic capabilities in the future. Moreover, a submarine-based missile force has some less-than-ideal characteristics. It is relatively expensive to operate compared to land-missile forces; and it is presently limited in warhead size. Consequently, the ocean-based missile force could conceivably take some totally new direction of development in the fu- ture which would hopefully combine many of the better characteristics of the land-based force: Less expensive, larger payloads; better com- mand and control, with some of the characteristics of the submarine force; i.e, invulnerability. This does not imply that we will not also have an interest in developing missile-carrying submarines capable of operating at much greater depths than currently. Perhaps the ocean bottom would help conceal their presence and thereby make them even less susceptible to enemy counteraction. Such developments may, for example, take the form of missiles of Polaris’ size or even considerably larger placed on relatively shallow underwater barge systems on the Continental Shelf in a way which conceals their location and requires the system to move infrequently so that the potential of its being tracked by motion-generated noise is minimized. In addition one might consider a slightly mobile ocean- bottom system which creeps along. Systems of this kind, if they are ever to be realized, will require different kinds of marine engineering research from that which produced the current submarine-based force. Such systems can involve much larger missiles, might require under- water maintenance by personnel also located underwater, might entail development of new kinds of implacement gear for positioning missiles, might necessitate new kinds of detection and survival equipment to prevent attacks on the implacements, and so on. In summary it is very possible that the kind of strategic offensive force we may wish to develop for the future will rely even more heavily on ocean-based systems than that which we now have. Such systems may very well require operations at a much wider range of ocean environment and for much longer times than at present. Thus, the need for oceanographic research and support of these weapon systems becomes even greater and will certainly have to encompass a wider problem area in development and maintenance of present sub- marine forces. These problems will range from ascertaining that the ocean-based systems cannot easily be compromised by an enemy’s ex- ploitation of some hiterto hidden effects of the ocean’s environment to development of massive ocean engineering capabilities. It is likely that the Navy’s involvement in oceanographic research to develop, support, and maintain our weapon systems will increase rather than 220-659 O—66——-4 33 decrease in the future and will include a more widespread range of problems than it currently does. Search and Recovery Exploration. Loss of the Thresher in 1963 and the recent search for the lost nuclear weapon in the Mediter- ranean off the Spanish coast cannot be regarded as insignificant, iso- lated incidents in long-term plans for national security. A continu- ing requirement will be seeking, identifying, and retrieving objects related to national defense from the ocean floor. These objects can be grouped roughly as follows: 1. Disabled submersibles with survivors. 2. Weapon system components, instruments, or data packages. 3. Hardware, recovery of which is based on economic consid- erations or diagnostic needs. 4. Debris, recovery of which is required for diagnostic pur- poses. When life is at stake, it is essential to move quickly and to mo- bilize men and equipment at the site of the incident. In view of the sensitive nature of many of these tasks, the military research-recovery mission must be assigned to the Navy. In order to carry out these missions the Navy should create a spe- cially trained task force to cope with deep sea recovery. It must be continually on call and highly mobile so that the requisite force to initiate search operations can be assembled almost anywhere in the world within 24 hours. Technology required by this task force exists only in part and will have to be developed by the Navy in the next several years. In time the civilian sector will need some of this tech- nology and eventually perhaps will conduct search and retrieval activities. Notwithstanding, the Panel recommends that all ocean search-and-recovery missions related in any way to national security be the responsibility of the Navy. 5.3. THE NAVY’S OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM The Navy’s oceanographic program excluding the one-time ship- construction appropriation of a nuclear-powered deep-ocean engineer- ing vehicle has expanded from $120 million in fiscal year 1965 to $141 million in fiscal year 1966 and to $205 million for fiscal year 1967. Although the program has been subdivided in many different ways, it can for the purposes of this report be divided into: (a) Basic research and education; (6) Research and development for undersea weapons and sen- sors; (c) Mapping and charting: (d) Undersea technology; (e) Rescue, search, and recovery of undersea objects; (f) Test and evaluation facilities ; (g) Oceanographic data and information services. Basic research and education are so vital to both the Navy and the national interest in the marine environment that they will be discussed singly in the next subsection. Research and development for under- sea weapons and sensors are the Navy’s purview, and any discussion must take into consideration the Navy’s requirements, which is beyond the scope of this Panel’s assignment. The Panel does recommend: 1. Unclassified R & D information be made available in timely fashion. 2. Classified R & D information in the area of sensor develop- ment be made more available to Federal and industrial com- munities having application for the data than has been the case. The judgment of the Panel is that current Navy classification poli- cies often weigh short range and narrow security considerations too heavily as compared to the longer range security which must be gained by more rapid and effective development of the scientific and techno- logical base from which its systems are derived. Our recommenda- tion therefore is that the Navy review its classification policies with a view to furthering more rapid progress by increasing the diffusion of deep sea technology. While information that will compromise military systems must be classified, advantages of wide diffusion and input diversity from scientific and industrial communities generally outweigh any risk involved. Mapping and charting, sometimes referred to as hydrographic sur- veys, are responsibilities of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Ocean mapping and charting by the Navy are executed as part of the total national oceanographic program. Military requirements dictate a greater degree of accuracy in charting the ocean bottom than is re- quired by other Federal agencies. Therefore, no quantitative recom- mendations can be made with respect to the Navy’s survey program requirements. However, criticism applicable to the survey program of ESSA is equally valid with respect to the Navy’s Hydrographic Survey Program (see sec. 4-6). The Panel concurs on the recent action to establish an R & D program in Navy mapping and charting and recommends: 1. A minimum expenditure of $2 million per year in light of significant Navy expenditures in mapping and charting. 2. Continuation of commercial ship leasing for added survey requirements. Undersea technology is that general area of ocean engineering not associated directly with specific defense systems. The ability to con- struct towers on the ocean floor, general undersea navigational con- cepts, and deep undersea materials technology form part of the Navy’s 30 undersea technology program. The Sea Bed (vol. 4) report recom- mended a substantial Navy program of several hundred million dol- lars’ expenditure over the next several years in this area. The Panel recommends a significant increase over the present $2 million a year in Navy expenditures. Shortly after the loss of the Thresher the Navy convened a board to evaluate and ascertain the Navy’s ocean capabilities specifically with regard tosubmarinerescue. After a year-long study this group (Deep Submergence Systems Review Group) recommended establishment of a 5-year program having four basic areas, costing about $332 million. These four categories were specified for the Navy’s concentrated effort: 1. Submarine location, escape and rescue; 2. Deep-ocean, small-object location and recovery ; 3. Increased salvage capability ; 4, Extended capabilities of man as a free swimmer to perform useful work in the ocean environment to his physiological limits. As a result of these recommendations the Navy formed a special group called the Deep Submergence Systems Project which was to implement these capabilities and enable the Navy to have worldwide operational capabilities by 1969. This group, initially placed within the Navy’s special project office, was recently made a separate CNM- designated project in order to focus the Navy’s effort on exploration of oceanic depth. An additional task for this new group was man- agement of the nuclear powered oceanographic vehicle (NR-1). The accomplishment of the four specific tasks initially given this group has been delayed in part because of funding problems. This year’s budgeting for the prototype rescue vessel is approximately $314 mil- lion short of the amount required; this difference is attributable to the low estimated cost at the onset of the program. This vehicle, now stripped of all significant search-and-recovery capability, will give us limited capability by the end of 1968 to rescue men from disabled sub- marines at their collapse depth. A full complement of six vehicles in 1970 will provide worldwide rescue capability. There exists today no demonstrated, operational capability to rescue personnel from sub- marines beyond a depth of 600 feet; this leaves a depth gap with no capability to rescue and no capability to rescue from under ice. Search-and-recovery capability regarding small objects has suf- fered the most severe cutback. Initial recommendations to the Navy provided a capability to locate and recover small objects over 98 per- cent of the ocean floor (20,000 feet) by 1970. A worldwide operational capability in this field will require highly sophisticated, deep-diving search-and-recovery vehicles, supporting research and development and instrumentation. The experience off Spain in the recovery of the nuclear weapon illustrate the problems in the fields of acoustic detec- tion and imaging, underwater navigation and marking devices and 36 endurance and maneuvering capabilities in the vehicles (see secs. 4.1, 4.2,4.3,4.4). It was fully 3 weeks after the loss of the nuclear weapon before any deep-ocean equipment was on the scene and an adequate surface-navigation network established. This portion of the Navy’s program is now limited to one R & D prototype search-test vehicle with limited depth capability. In the area of large-object salvage the initial goal, salvaging an attacked submarine from its collapse depth, has been restricted by lack of funds to a 1970 operational capability of 600 feet, the depth of the continental shelves. Backup studies will enable implementation of desired capabilities, should adequate fund- ing be made available. In the area of extending man’s capabilities as a free swimmer at de- sired depths, the Navy is performing only the minimum necessary, specific physiological research and development through controlled experiments in shore-based pressure facilities (see sec. 4.11). This work is supported by a series of experiments (Sea Lab 1 and 2 being completed and Sea Lab 3 scheduled for February 1967). These experi- ments are expected to continue until there is a demonstrated capability as deep as 1,000 feet. In summary the four specific areas of effort recommended by the Deep Submergence Systems Review Group to the Secretary of the Navy regarding implementation and operational capabilities continue to be hampered by funding limitations. A worldwide rescue capability will be available in 1970. There is no planned capability for locating and recovering small objects from ocean depths beyond 6,000 feet (the mean depth of the ocean is 12,000 feet). The effort to extend free- swimmer capability into depths is proceeding on schedule but lacks adequate physiological and biomedical research (see sec. 4.11). The Navy’s salvage capabilities for intact submarines will be limited to the Continental Shelf. 3.4. THE NAVY’S ROLE IN EDUCATION AND RESEARCH Although the Navy’s role in ocean science is separable and clearly mission-oriented, the Panel feels very strongly that it should continue to be closely linked with academic education and research. In the past this connection has been mutually profitable. Academic oceanography would hardly exist if the Navy, chiefly through the Office of Naval Research, had not provided leadership and imaginative support during the past 20 years. This is a debt universally and freely acknowledged by research oceanographers. On the Navy’s side support of broad re- search has provided substantial information about oceans necessary to carry out its present mission. In addition many research tools devel- oped for basic oceanography have served as prototypes for operation- ally useful equipment. Examples include explosive echo-ranging, the bathythermograph, deep-sea-moored buoys, deep submersibles, under- 37 water photography, bottom profiling by precision depth-sounders and discovery of deep-scattering layers. Variable-depth sonar and short- pulse target identification were byproducts of oceanographic research. Moreover, oceanographers are highly responsive to Navy problems having little connection with research. Many instances can be cited of the Navy and the scientific community working hand in hand. Most recent of these is, of course, the concerted, successful effort to locate and recover the unarmed nuclear weapon off the Spanish coast. Response of the oceanographic community was instantaneous, and this group played a leading role in the weapon’s recovery. In this instance, as in the tragic loss of Thresher, oceanographic institutions and civilian scientists put aside personal plans and volunteered to assist the Navy in its recovery mission. This civilian-Navy teamwork has proved highly successful and harmonious. Conversely, Navy personnel by virtue of their support of oceanographic laboratories are sufficiently aware of laboratory capabilities to facilitate immediate, effective action when an emergency arises. Navy support of marine geophysical work in this country during the past decade has led to development of techniques for obtaining long- range sound transmission in oceans and acquisition of knowledge re- garding parameters that affect it. When the Navy encounters diffi- culties with its sonar operations, competent people are available to rectify them. Similar instances in other fields of oceangraphy illus- trate the interaction between civilian scientists and the Navy. Fur- ther, as the Navy’s detection and weapon systems become more so- phisticated this interaction can be expected to increase. Finally, and vitally important, the Navy has been a major consumer of the output of academic oceanography in both manpower and science. Without increased numbers of scientists and engineers knowledgeable about oceans the Navy cannot carry out many of the programs re- viewed above. Likewise, without the generalizations produced by aca- demic research the Navy cannot efficiently utilize information collected to support these programs. For these reasons the Panel strongly recommends that the Navy continue its support of academic research and education related to oceans. As was pointed out previously, the Navy’s budget for ocean- ography has almost doubled in the fiscal years 1965-67 period. The Navy’s contribution to academic oceanography in the area of basic research during the period has remained constant. Under these cir- cumstances the Navy may not be able to effectively utilize ocean- ography in the future. It is important that the Navy maintain a proportionality between its support of academic research and educa- tion and its total oceanographic program. This would imply a marked increase in support of academic oceanography if the proportionality prior to 1965 is to be maintained as the whole Navy program expands. 38 We suggest, in addition that the ONR might profitably reexamine the particular importance of ocean science and technology to the Navy’s basic mission. 3.0. INTERACTION OF NAVY PROGRAMS WITH CIVILIAN TECHNOLOGY The Panel’s projections concerning directions and rate of techno- logical development discussed in section 4, upon which so much of the Nation’s ocean program depends, assume that the Navy will success- fully pursue its current projects on Deep Submergence Systems and Man in the Sea. In the event the Navy fails to accomplish its ob- jectives in these areas the Panel’s estimates of progress, time, and cost will have to be revised. In such case it would be in the Nation’s interest to assign programs with similar goals to civilian agencies. The recent successful location and recovery of the unarmed nuclear weapon off Spain demonstrated the mutual benefits of close Navy- industry cooperation. It is recommended that the Navy make a con- tinuing, special effort to utilize the people, facilities, and know-how of the private sector in achieving its objectives in the Deep Submergence and Man in the Sea Projects. Only in this way can the Nation hope to capitalize quickly and profitably on its ocean technology capability. In the event complete information exchange would involve classified data, the Panel recommends that arrangements be made to provide properly qualified industrial groups with access to this classified in- formation. By 1975 the Panel foresees the possibility of conducting complex, highly technical operations on the ocean bottom which are well beyond the limits of present technology. The Panel recommends that a proper Federal role related to ocean-technology development would be provision of a test range equipped with standardized stations in which component systems, concepts, and materials can be critically tested. Such a test range might consist of stations on the water’s edge in the surf zone, at depths of 200, 600, 2,400, and 6,000 feet and per- haps in the abyssal deep. This facility would engender government- industry cooperation and technology developments with the desirable result. of shortening the time required for specific developments and acceptance testing. The Navy in meeting its needs will undoubtedly require such a range. The Panel recommends that the Navy under- take a study which could lead to development of this range. Once implemented it should be made available to industrial and university groups, users, being expected to pay a prorated share of the total operating cost and depreciation, as is the case in other national facilities. 5.6. CONCLUSIONS In section 5.2 an already extensive Navy dependence on oceano- graph R & D was predicted to increase rapidly in the future. Not 39 only are oceans becoming more important as arenas for strategic and tactical military operations, but operations themselves are pressing into less familiar or understood portions of the marine environment. The twofold growth of the Navy’s oceanographic program over the fiscal year 1965-67 period, presented in section 5.3 testifies to the degree of recognition given by the Navy and Congress to increasing military need for knowledge of the marine environment and for carry- ing out service operations within it. This trend apparently will not be deemphasized in the future; if anything, the overall Navy oceanog- raphy program may accelerate. The priorities which determine the bulk of the Navy’s oceanographic efforts are primarily military, and certain of these considerations are paramount, involving specialized requirements for both research and surveys, as well as engineering developments. We therefore recom- mend that the program remain solely under Navy direction rather than consolidated with perhaps somewhat similar programs of other agencies such as ESSA or a new civilian agency of ocean development such as the one proposed in this report (see’sec. 10.4). Support figures discussed in section 5.3 indicate that basic research has remained relatively constant while the overall Navy oceanography program has approximately doubled. It is not entirely clear to us that the great increase in ocean-engineering effort associated with such new programs as the Deep Submergence Systems Project should pro- ceed indefinitely without a corresponding increase in the Navy’s basic- research support. A proportionality between research, particularly basic research, and the total R & D effort in the given fields should probably be maintained if brute-force engineering solutions are not to be inadvertently substituted for what ought to be more discriminating deployment of operational requirements made possible by greater en- vironmental knowledge. Such knowledge generally requires consid- erable lead time for development and a long-term investment attitude toward research programs that produce it. It is in this connection that we wish to emphasize the importance of strengthening the tradi- tional Navy tie with the oceanographic research and educational com- munity, which appears to be jeopardized at present by stronger bonds with industry. Prompt and effective assistance from the ocean-science community to such urgent needs as the Thresher search and the recent successful weapon-recovery operation off Spain are, we feel, dramatic and by no means isolated examples of the beneficial, responsive nature of this tie. Both direct evidence from budgets and indirect evidence from excellent research proposals for basic studies which have been refused suggest the need for increased Navy support of the basic oceanographic sciences and technologies. 40 6.0. Opportunities in Oceanographic Research 6.1. OBSERVATION Until recently oceanographic observations could be characterized as being exploratory in nature. Expeditions were undertaken, usually with a single ship, to survey unknown regions or to observe special phenomena discovered on an earlier expedition. Exploratory surveys have frequently provided new information which has been useful in asking questions of critical scientific importance but not so often in answering them. Another consequence of the emphasis given to ex- ploratory observation is that oceanographers have been physically and intellectually isolated from their colleagues in basic disciplines and in other geophysical sciences. In recent years exploratory observations, although they still dom- inate oceanography, have begun to yield to more systematic observa- tions designed for specific purposes. There are a number of reasons for this change. First, there is a growing awareness that the most challenging scien- tific problems encompass two or more of the environmental sciences. For example, oceanic circulation cannot be understood apart from at- mospheric circulation, nor can atmospheric circulation be predicted for periods of more than a few days without considering the ocean. Development of a theory of climate will require treating the oceans and atmosphere as a thoroughly interacting system. The complexi- ties of the interactions are illustrated by the processes of sedimentation on the bottom of the sea. These processes are governed by physical and biological conditions within the volume of the oceans, which de- pend on the interaction of the oceans and the atmosphere. Second, new platforms and sensors are becoming available which permit new observations. Acoustic and electromagnetic probes make possible remote sensing, “swallow” floats give unequivocal records of subsurface currents, thermistor chains can furnish continuous records of temperature distribution and “hot wires” provide information about the turbulent spectrum. Many other examples could be cited. Third, developments in data processing and in methods of data analysis represent major advances. Telemetering techniques provide 41 vast quantities of data far beyond that available a decade ago, and the newer computers permit systematic analysis of these data and facilitate study of matematical models by integration of governing differential equations. A consequence of these new capabilities in data processing and analysis is that quantitative determinations are beginning to re- place qualitative and intuitive accounts which characterized geophysi- cal sciences a few years ago. For example, direct measurement of vertical flux and wind stress can now be made by spectral analysis of fluctuations. New insights into the mechanism of nonlinear coupling, made possible by computer technology, have contributed significantly to theories of wave generation and motions of a variety of scales. These developments in observational techniques, data processing, and interpretation have proved to be equally valuable in studies of the oceans, atmosphere, and solid earth. A strong coupling of research among various fields of geophysics exists. There is a basic com- monality in observational platforms, techniques of analysis and under- lying theory. A fruitful idea in one field is likely to be equally profitable in other geophysical fields. Thus, broadly trained, creative scientists may provide crucial leadership in several fields simultane- ously. A close connection also exists between geophysical and biological problems, despite the fact that these connections have often been over- looked. Certain regions owe their great biological productivity to subtle combinations of chemical and physical processes which vitally need to be understood. Oceanographers are well aware of the im- portance of these relationships, and in the future we see a closer rela- tionship between biological and physical studies of the sea. This will be especially important as modification of the environment. be- comes more widespread (see sec. 3). Our new abilities to observe and interpret the environment have brought within the range of reasonable possibility a number of major scientific and technological enterprises. These require increased un- derstanding of the functioning of systems far more complex than those which can be studied in the laboratory. Consequently, there are of the highest intrinsic scientific interest, as well as of great practical importance. 6.2. PREDICTION We are in the very early stages of developing the capability for ocean prediction. Until World War II ocean predictions were limited to truly periodic phenomena whose mechanism was clearly under- stood—tides and seasons. Tidal predictions are still imperfect, and improvements based on more complete treatment of nonlinear effects and transients associated with surface winds and pressure are within reach. 42 In the past two decades methods have been devised for : (a) Prediction of surface waves based on observations and pre- dictions of surface-wind distribution.. (6) Warnings of tsunamis produced by earthquakes which are readily detected at great distances. These methods have proved vital for safety and economy in coastal areas, in commercial shipping and for many military operations. Further improvement in wave prediction is tied closely to atmospheric prediction, for which atmospheric observations over the oceans are required. In a similar way prediction of the depth of the surface mixed layer, still in its early stages, is closely tied to the meteorologi- cal problem. Understanding the processes occurring in the surface mixed layer is important for acoustic-transmission applications within the sea and for marine biological problems. We have reason to think that these phenomena, for which rather simple prediction methods are available, fail to encompass other char- acteristic, important features of the ocean. From the fragmentary evidence we have at present, it appears that a wide range of time- dependent phenomena do indeed occur in the ocean, as our experience with stratified fluids in the laboratory or in the atmosphere would lead us to expect. Ocean weather may be as varied and complex as the weather in the atmosphere. For example, we see indications of inter- nal gravity waves, inertial motions associated with the earth’s rotation, turbulence, meanders in the Gulf Stream and other currents and fluctuations in surface temperature over large areas; but we have not yet adequately described any of these phenomena. Whether current systems occur which are comparable in size to atmospheric planetary waves remains to be discovered. The extent to which prediction of these phenomena is inherently feasible and for what scales of time and space remains unknown; these problems appear destined to become some of the most exciting objectives of ocean research in the next decade. The answers are not obvious, for although the governing differential equations are well known, we do not know the strength of coupling between observable and unobservable scales. We do know, however, that lack of ocean surface-layer observations restricts effective atmospheric prediction to a few days. Until the prediction problem is better understood, the potentialities of deliberate ocean modification cannot be determined. Without such understanding, large-scale experiments addressed to diverting ocean currents, to melting the Arctic ice or to overturning large regions of ocean water would be extravagant and highly irresponsible. How- ever, inadvertent modification of coastal areas, already of local con- cern, is likely to become more serious. In order to plan wisely for use and development of coastal areas we must learn to predict such 43 effects as increased pollution, changes in coastlines, and deepening of harbors. Finally, a remark should be made concerning the space and scale of ocean observations envisioned by this Panel. For the present and for the foreseeable future ocean observations should be undertaken as research and development programs, with specifications closely linked to objectives and with results linked to subsequent planning. The first stages should be distinctly limited in scope and in areal extent ; but one should anticipate observational systems covering very large areas. It will be necessary to establish and maintain numbers of observing platforms in, on and above the sea. Reliable communication systems of considerable complexity will be needed. Furthermore, the inher- ently global nature of many scientific problems will require support of research on a larger scale and more stable basis than has been the case heretofore. 6.3. PHYSICAL PROCESSES A catalog on research problems in physical oceanography captures neither the flavor nor the intellectual quality of scientific challenges posed by the oceans. For example in the ocean bottom a well-docu- mented history of our planet is recorded, perhaps containing far more information about the early stages of evolution of our planet and the solar system than on the moon’s scarred surface. The oceans are a giant laboratory for fluid dynamics, which illustrates the full com- plexity of hydrodynamics. The oceans, in turn, interact with both the solid earth and atmosphere in direct and subtle ways, and one can never hope to gain a comprehensive understanding from study limited to the oceans themselves. We will not compose a detailed framework of oceanographic research nor catalog the variety of work in progress at existing institutions." Instead, we will concentrate upon defining specific, new types of large- scale projects not yet underway which seem to offer great potential for increased knowledge. The emphasis on large-scale projects in this section does not imply that progress in oceanography can be achieved only in this way. The large-scale projects originate through the efforts of individual researchers seeking answers to problems posed by theoretical, laboratory of small-scale observational studies. Benthic Boundary. At the bottom of the deep ocean there is a transition from fluid, to fluid with suspended particles, to solid with interstitial fluid, to solid. The detailed nature of this boundary is unknown, as well as whether its characteristics result primarily from physical or biological processes. An understanding of this boundary Chapter II, “National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Oceanography Report” (in preparation), provides one account of such background material. os is essential in order to solve such problems as long-range sound trans- mission of powerful sonars (SQS—26), occupation at the bottom in permanent or semipermanent structures and search for objects at or near the bottom. The study of the benthic boundary is now possible because of the development of recording devices and probes which measure temperature, velocity, and pressure fluctuations at great depths. The benthic boundary is a base for studying the earth below. Beneath the oceans the earth’s crust is thin, and environmental condi- tions for measurement are quiet. A recent surprising discovery is that standard geophysical methods of exploration (seismic, gravi- metric, magnetic, and geothermal) yield better results than on land. The greater technical difficulties of working on the sea bottom are more than compensated by advantages of a uniform environment. There remains, of course, great ambiguity about the deeper material. This can only be resolved by coring the sediments (JOIDES) and the layer beneath (MOHOLE). An opportunity exists for adapting other geophysical techniques developed on land for marine use. For example, measurements on the sea bottom of the fluctuating electric and magnetic fields at various frequencies could provide information about the variation of con- ductivity with depth; from this, one can, in principle infer internal temperature and ultimately horizontal stresses between oceans and continents. Our understanding of mountain making and of the very existence of oceans and continents depends on assessment of stresses at the margin of basins. It is now possible to make deep-ocean tide measurements from in- struments lowered to the seabed. Theories of the origin of the moon depend critically on the efficacy of tides in disposing of the mechanical energy of the earth-moon system. Do tides in the solid earth slow down the earth’s rotation and move the moon outward or are the ocean tides responsible? Additional tidal measurements on a global scale are required in order to settle the problem. Further understanding of the benthic boundary depends on con- tinued development of instruments operable at great depths. Many observational programs require data-collection over long periods of time, and substantial technological problems exist in collecting these data. Furthermore, the ocean bottom is not uniform, and isolated observations are unlikely to yield a proper view. We can thus expect continuing expansion of measurements on a global scale. The oppor- tunity exists for perhaps solving an important cosmological problem, and we recommend that tidal measurements be made for many parts of the oceans to determine once and for all the nature and magnitude of oceanic tidal friction. 45 The Abyssal Ocean. The deep distribution of oceanic variables (temperature, salinity, current, etc.), and planktonic and sedimentary particles appears to be determined by upwelling and turbulent fluxes. The most urgent need is for observational studies of the turbulent mixing processes. 50 4 PS ~~ 2 oo” zZ eNt07a,~*— was