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