Volume 25, Number 1 , Spring 1982 Oceanus The Magazine of Marine Science and Policy Volume 25, Number 1, Spring 1982 Paul R. Ryan, f of/for Ben McKelway, Assistant Editor William H. MacLeish, Consulting Editor (Editor — 1972-1981) Editorial Advisory Board Henry Charnock, Professor of Physical Oceanography, University of Southampton, England Edward D. Goldberg, Professor of Chemistry, Scripps Institution of Oceanography Charles D. Hollister, Dean of Graduate Studies, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution John Imbrie, Henry L. Doherty Professor of Oceanography, Brown University John A. Knauss, Provost for Marine Affairs, University of Rhode Island Arthur E. Maxwell , Director of the Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas Robert V. Ormes,/\ssoc/are Publisher, Science Timothy R. Parsons, Professor, Institute of Oceanography, University of British Columbia, Canada Allan R. Robinson, Gordon McKay Professor of Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, Harvard University David A. Ross, Sen/or Scientist, Department of Geology and Geophysics; Sea Grant Coordinator; and Director of the Marine Policy and Ocean Management Program, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution *L Published by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Charles F. Adams, Chairman, Board of Trustees Paul M. Fye, President of the Corporation Townsend Hornor, President of the Associates John H. Steele, Director of the Institution mtm m&m. The views expressed in Oceanus are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Editorial correspondence: Oceanus, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543. Telephone (617) 548-1400. Subscription correspondence: All subscriptions, single copy orders, and change-of-address information should be addressed to Oceanus Subscription Department, 1172 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, Mass. 02134. Telephone (617) 734-9800. Please make checks payable to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Subscription rate: $15 for one year. Subscribers outside the U.S. or Canada please add $2 per year handling charge; checks accompanying foreign orders must be payable in U.S. currency and drawn on a U.S. bank. Current copy price, $3.75; forty percent discount on current copy orders of five or more. When sending change of address, please include mailing label. Claims for missing numbers will not be honored later than 3 months after publication; foreign claims, 5 months. For information on back issues, see page 80. Postmaster: Please send Form 3579 to Oceanus, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543. DON'T MISS THE BOAT /£ WATCH lacLeish 2 )N: OCEAN SCIENCE AND SHIPS >encer £ FLEET )insmore ' federal budget constraints have brought about a crisis in the 5 I SEMISUBMERGED RESEARCH SHIPS r \d catamarans are excellent contenders to be included in the mix of vessels. >: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE lendinger I/on of submersibles will likely see the continued ascendancy of \r manned vehicles. illard lual-vehicle submersible system is being developed that one day may 1930 SUBSCRIBE NOW JO/AT 7smore le on the historic sailing vessel Atlantis. 3£ /£ KNORR: A MARRIAGE AT SEA lay \f the largest conventional vessels in the academic fleet and her SEARCH SAILING SHIP: SRV FRONTIER CHALLENGER iderson and Raymond H. Richards |>me to launch a new sailing research vessel on a modem "Challenger San Diego group believes so. /T3 1ARAN RESEARCH VESSELS FOR THE 80s AND 90s r ins appear to offer a possible alternative to large research A SHIP FOR SCIENTIFIC DRILLING by M. N. A. Peterson and F. C. MacTernan A review of the drilling ship Glomar Challenger's long and productive career. THE COVER: Design by E. Kevin King Copyright © 1982 by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Oceanus (ISSN 0029-8182) is published quarterly by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543. Second-class postage paid at Falmouth, Massachusetts, and additional mailing points. Oceanus The Magazine of Marine Science and Policy Volume 25, Number 1, Spring 1982 Paul R. Ryan, Editor Ben McKelway, Assistant Editor William H. MacLeish, Consulting Editor (Editor— 1972-1981) HAVE THE SUBSCRIPTION COUPONS BEEN DETACHED? If someone else has made use of the coupons attached to this card, you can still subscribe. Just send a check- -$15 for one year (four issues), $25 for two, $35 for three* — to this address: Editorial Advisory Board Henry Charnock, Professor of Physical Oceanography, University of Southampt Edward D. Goldberg, Professor of Chemistry, Scripps Institution ofOceanograp Charles D. Hollister, Dean of Graduate Studies, Woods Hole Oceanographic In John Imbrie, Henry L. Doherty Professor of Oceanography, Brown University John A. Knauss, Provost for Marine Affairs, University of Rhode Island Arthur E. Maxwell, Director of the Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas Robert V. Ormes,/4ssoc/afe Publisher, Science Timothy R. Parsons, Professor, Institute of Oceanography, University of British Allan R. Robinson, Cordon McKay Professor of Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, Ha David A. Ross, Senior Scientist, Department of Geology and Geophysics; Sea Gra Policy and Ocean Management Program, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institutio Published by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Charles F. Adams, Chairman, Board of Trustees Paul M. Fye, President of the Corporation Townsend Hornor, President of the Associates o . i John H. Steele, Director of the Institution The views expressed in Oceanus are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Editorial correspondence: Oceanus, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, V Massachusetts 02543. Telephone (617) 548-1400. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Woods Hole, Mass, 02543 Please make check payable to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 1930 *Outside U.S. and Canada, rates are $17 for one year, $29 for two, $41 for three. Checks for foreign orders must be payable in U.S. dollars and drawn on a U.S. bank. Subscription correspondence : All subscriptions, single copy orders, and change-of-address information should be addressed to Oceanus Subscription Department, 1172 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, Mass. 02134. Telephone (617) 734-9800. Please make checks payable to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Subscription rate: $15 for one year. Subscribers outside the U.S. or Canada please add $2per year handling charge; checks accompanying foreign orders must be payable in U.S. currency and drawn on a U.S. bank. Current copy price, $3.75; forty percent discount on current copy orders of five or more. When sending change of address, please include mailing label. Claims for missing numbers will not be honored later than 3 months after publication; foreign claims, 5 months. For information on back issues, see page 80. Postmaster: Please send Form 3579 to Oceanus, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543. Contents £ JL= CHANGING THE WATCH by William H. MacLeish 2 INTRODUCTION: OCEAN SCIENCE AND SHIPS by Derek W. Spencer ^ THE UNIVERSITY FLEET by Robertson Dinsmore Rising costs and federal budget constraints have brought about a crisis in the academic fleet. £ THE CASE FOR SEMISUBMERGED RESEARCH SHIPS by Ally n C. Vine Semisubmerged catamarans are excellent contenders to be included in the mix of future research vessels. J C SUBMERSIBLES: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE by Eugene Allmendinger A third generation of submersibles will likely see the continued ascendancy of unmanned over manned vehicles. 1 Q ARGO AND JASON by Robert D. Ballard An unmanned dual-vehicle submersible system is being developed that one day may replace Alvin. LIFEINTHEA-BOAT by C. Dana Densmore A glimpse of life on the historic sailing vessel Atlantis, HILLERAND THE KNORR: A MARRIAGE AT SEA by Ben McKelway A look at oneof the largest conventional vessels in the academic fleet and her master. A MODERN RESEARCH SAILING SHIP: SRV FRONTIER CHALLENGER by George B. Anderson and Raymond H. Richards Has the time come to launch a new sailing research vessel on a modern "Challenger Expedition?" A San Diego group believes so. SAILING CATAMARAN RESEARCH VESSELS FOR THE 80s AND 90s by John Van Leer Sailing catamarans appear to offer a possible alternative to large research vessels, A SHIP FOR SCIENTIFIC DRILLING by M. N. A. Peterson and F. C. MacTernan A review of the drilling ship Glomar Challenger's long and productive career. THE COVER: Design by E. Kevin King Copyright © 1982 by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Oceanus (ISSN 0029-8182) is published quarterly by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543. Second-class postage paid at Falmouth, Massachusetts, and additional mailing points. Changing the Watch Oceanus is thirty. When I first walked into the old wooden building on Water Street in Woods Hole that houses our offices, the magazine had just reached the tender age of 21 . That's nine years ago. Nine good years. The Oceanus I came to was a house organ of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and a fine one. Its founding editor, Jan Hahn, had an enviable and unique way of directing his readers to the sea. My hope was to build on Hahn's foundation, to develop a magazine through which marine scientists here and at other leading research centers could communicate with those seriously interested in the world's oceans. We have kept a course in that direction, thanks chiefly to support from two successive directors of the Oceanographic — Paul Fye and John Steele — and from scientists (so many of whom have gone out of their way to advise and contribute), and from you. Experts who have sent you questionnaires tell us that your enthusiasm for Oceanus is remarkably high. Without that endorsement, we would not be here. It is time to change the watch again. I am leaving the editorship to take up a part-time position as Consulting Editor. Thetime I gain will be devoted to the work I like best: writing. The book at hand deals with the fishing and oil industries on Georges Bank off Cape Cod. Others, I hope, will follow and, I hope even more fervently, will meet with your approval. Replacing me is Paul Ryan, who has served for the past five years as Associate and then Managing Editor. Paul has that rare balance of imagination and stubbornness that marks the best in this business. He will be ably assisted by Ben McKelway, our new Assistant Editor. The magazine itself will continue to evolve. Some shifts are still in the development stage, but it would not be premature to say that the new Oceanus will feature departments designed both to serve you better and to vary the editorial pace. I hope you will be as generous in giving Paul your evaluations of what you read here as you have been with me. When I first addressed the readership nine years ago, I was a newcomer to marine science, impressed by its vigor and growth. "New hardware," I wrote, "new ships to carry it, new buildings, and the justification for all of it, new findings to enrich the sciences of the sea." I leave you with a sense of concern , one I hope many of you share. Costs, particularly those of ship operations, are high and rising. Research support, particularly that from traditionally important federal agencies, is shrinking. And while sacrifices must be shared in hard times, what concerns me is that those imposing the sacrifices may do so without pausing to look seaward. The planet, as you and I know, is misnamed. It is an ocean world, and our knowledge of it can never serve us well in the absence of new findings to enrich the sciences of the sea. William H. MacLeish, Editor (1972-1 981) We Welcome Letters What will the change in watch mean to Oceanus? A difficult question. We are contemplating a slight change in course. A fair funding wind in the 1970s and early 1980s brought the magazine handsomely through such important issues as pollution, climate, energy, eddies, and now research vessels. A recent professional survey indicated that nearly 75 percent of the readership thought the magazine was on the right course during that earlier period and that no change was needed. But still there are nagging doubts on the bridge. What do those obvious funding storm clouds on the horizon portend? Some criticize us for becoming too erudite. It has been proposed that more readers might be served if the magazine expanded its content (keeping its core of scientific articles and thematic issues) to include such features as letters to the editor, pro and con arguments on controversial issues, book reviews, a news section on current Oceanographic developments, and profiles of selected oceanographers. In addition, the acceptance of classified and display advertisements has been suggested. We would like to have your thoughts on these contemplated changes. We would particularly welcome letters to the editor on this subject or on articles in this issue or others that aroused your interest. P. R. R. Introduction: Ocean Science and Ships by Derek W. Spencer I n reviewing our present extensive knowledge of the ocean, it is sometimes difficult to accept the fact that most of the progress has been made in the 37 years since World War II. For instance, many are surprised to learn that even as late as 1950 maps of the ocean floor were not as good as those of North America at the start of the Great Surveys of 1876. In the relatively short time since 1950, not only have we discovered chains of huge submarine mountains, abyssal plains, and deep trenches but, through the unifying concept of plate tectonics, we have come to some understanding of how sea-floor topography is formed. We now know a great deal about ocean currents; how water is driven by the wind, the sun, and the earth's rotation. We understand many of the biological, chemical, geological, and physical processes that act to control the composition of seawater and sediments. We can use the record of earth history trapped in the layers of marine sediments to learn about world climate at the dawn of civilization. These and many other advances have been possible because of ships. Ships have provided the essential platforms to carry oceanographers to the far reaches of the globe and allow them to observe the ocean in its full complexity. The basic workhorses of the university research fleet have been the larger 175- to 300-foot vessels that have the endurance for extended cruises, the capacity to carry many scientists, and the stability to work in rough seas. During the last 30 years, these ships have roamed the seas- sounding the ocean floor; towing instruments and nets; taking sediment, rock, water, and living samples; and launching and recovering moored instrument arrays. A chart of all the cruise tracks resembles a web spun by a drunken spider. But oceanography is changing. There are some who state that the days of world-circling cruises are very nearly gone. There are more practicing oceanographers today than at any time in our history, but in the last few years there has been a decreased demand for ship time, particularly for the larger vessels. However, this is due neither to the lack of good research problems nor, in general, to the lack of scientists interested in working on the problems. The reasons appear to be several and complex. Oceanography is a maturing science, and the initial stage of exploration of the unknown has been accomplished in many of the disciplines that are involved in ocean studies. The problems now under investigation are more precisely defined, more localized, and frequently closer to home. We have become more efficient as observers of the ocean. For instance, it was only about 10 years ago that current meter moorings had to be recovered after two to three months of deployment. Today, improvements in electronics have led to 12-month deployments as being almost routine and 24 months possible in the near future. The extended deployment periods require less ship time to collect more data. Similarly, automation and improvements in many other areas have given us the capability to collect more and better data in less time at sea. Remote observations from satellites (see Oceanus, Vol. 24, No. 3) and techniques such as acoustic tomography, in which sound may be used to track ocean currents over large areas, are being developed, but these have yet to have a major impact on most of our science. And yet, in the last several years, federal funds for oceanographic science, and hence for the oceanographic research fleet have been insufficient to keep pace with the rampant inflation that we have experienced. The National Science Foundation (NSF), which supports a major portion of ocean research, is today funding 20 percent fewer scientists than in 1975. The competition for the research dollar is very severe, particularly in biological oceanography where only about 35 percent of the total proposals submitted to NSF are funded. Many scientists, in order to support their research programs, have turned to other funding sources, such as Sea Grant and the Bureau of Land Management. These missions and programs require little sea time. As a consequence of these factors, fundamental changes in the composition and capabilities of the university research fleet are taking place and more are likely to follow in the future. Last year, President Reagan announced his request for 12-percent across-the-board cuts in federal spending, excluding defense, for the fiscal years 1982 and 1983. This announcement caused great concern among oceanographic research scientists for it signaled the dismemberment of a capability already under stress from inflation. In 1979 and 1980, about 80 percent of the funds for the operation of the university fleet were supplied by nondefense-related federal agencies, principally NSF, which alone contributed some two-thirds of the total. The 12-percent cut for 1982 did not materialize, nor is it now proposed for 1983; however, essentially level-funding in 1982 and only small increases in 1983 allow inflation to continue to erode our seagoing facilities. In 1982, two of the 25 vessels in the UNOLS (University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System) fleet are out of service because of a lack of funding support. For the first time, some ocean science that is funded has been left at the dock. In the last three years, the number of large vessels has decreased from eight to six, with the permanent layup of the Vema and G////S. As Robertson Dinsmore points out in his article on "The University Fleet," the lean funding that has been available for the last several years has resulted in delayed maintenance and several of the vessels are not in the best condition. The current projected budgets for 1983 offer no relief, and it is clear that at least continued temporary layup of two or more vessels will be required. The decrease in the large vessel capability can be offset for many programs by the intermediate-size ships that are capable of trans-oceanic cruises. However, their lower scientific complement, shorter endurance and range, and lesser ability to work in heavy weather and handle heavy gear pose severe restrictions for other programs. For the next several years, our ability to mount oceanographic cruises to remote areas and to conduct large multidisciplinary expeditions will be limited by the lack of large vessel time. But, does oceanography really need large vessel time? Recently, a subcommittee of the Ocean Sciences Board of the National Academy of Sciences produced a report on the university fleet needs and prospects for the period from 1985 to 1990. This report outlines several important areas of study that need to be undertaken, all of which could occupy more ship time than is now available. Global studies of heat transport in the ocean are needed for an eventual understanding of the role of the ocean in weather and climate. Perhaps one of the ocean's greatest attributes is its capacity as a receptacle for man's wastes, but we must learn to use it properly. The resources of the polar regions need to be exposed and studied. The mineral resources of the Mid-Ocean Ridge areas need to be mapped and their extent, composition, and origin investigated. The U.S. Navy's fleet of submarines constitutes one of this nation's principal defensive systems, and knowledge of the operating environment is vital for this service. All of these and many other equally important programs will require deep-sea vessels: there is still a need for the workhorses. In the future, some of our investigations may be carried out with small remote vehicles that cruise around making measurements at various depths and transmitting their data back to shore. Remote sensing of several aspects of the ocean will become more common. However, many such developments are no more than a gleam in some ocean engineer's eye and it will be many years before they become, if ever, practical tools. In the intervening period, we must search for better and cheaper ways to operate at sea. Sailing or sail-assisted vessels may be one approach, but, as Dinsmore states, they offer little attraction other than fuel-saving and even that is lessened because research ships use a significant amount of their fuel to provide power for work on-station. The fuel savings of sail only apply while a ship is under way. Perhaps the most practical approach to meet current fiscal problems is that now employed by several UNOLS institutions. They are forming regional groups, which are attempting to optimize ship schedules so that one can get the maximum amount of science from a diminished fleet capability. This issue of Oceanus introduces the reader to some of the present thinking about ocean science and ships. It does not pretend to be comprehensive. Little mention, for example, is made of foreign oceanographic research vessels. However, many of the articles do argue for preserving the greatest measure of seagoing capability in the face of likely funding constraints throughout the 1980s. Derek W. Spencer is Associate Director for Research at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. I. ..I (Photo courtesy of Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami) The University Fleet by Robertson Dinsmore I n Ju ne 1 981 , the research vessel Cape Florida of the University of Miami put to sea on its fi rst voyage. This was a noteworthy occasion, for it had taken since 1971 to plan, fund, design, and construct this ship and her sister, the Cape Hatteras (Duke University). As the reader might guess, most of this elapsed time lay in the funding process. At about the same time, Columbia University's venerable 58-year-old research ship Vema had a sentimental homecoming at New York to be retired from the fleet. On the surface, this might appear to be a happy trade. But at the rate of five years to replace each of the 25 seagoing ships of the university fleet, scientists may still be working on the Cape Florida in the year 2106. Furthermore, we note with uneasiness that the "Cape" class comprises coastal vessels and that the Vema was a large vessel of worldwide cruising capability. The Vema follows two other large research ships, the G////SS (1980) and the Chain (1978), into retirement. Nevertheless, the addition of the new ships is a significant event. Scientists have long argued that capable small vessels would make for a more balanced, effective university fleet. The fleet as such is a unique part of the overall national inventory of research ships; the ships are operated by university laboratories and are relatively free to pursue basic academic research as opposed to government- or industry-sponsored applied research. With few exceptions, these ships, though smaller in number and size than those elsewhere in the world, have maintained a standard of scientific innovativeness and excellence that is virtually unmatched. University ships must be prepared to berth, feed, and clothe their visitors. In addition, they must furnish laboratories, workshops, and even libraries to highly motivated scientific workaholics whose work involves the basic disciplines; a chemistry cruise may be followed by one devoted to geology, biology, or physics. Often there is only a couple of days to convert the ship from one task to the other. Shipboard computers often equal those of a small college, and the scientific party and crew must be able to repair these and other complex apparatus at sea. I n the last decade, university ships have cruised in all oceans of the world and have worked i n places as remote as the polar seas and the upper jungle reaches of the Amazon River. The National Inventory To relate how university vessels fit into the total United States fleet, we must examine the size and composition of the national inventory. The oceanographic research fleet has three sectors - the federal, university, and commercial. It has been variously estimated to include between 50 and 200 vessels, depending upon definitions of size, use, and ownership. A "fact sheet" issued by the Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy estimates the number at 56 ships of more than 700 gross tons. M. W. Janis and D. C. F. Daniel, in a 1974 comparison with the Soviet Union's fleet, estimated the figure at 120 vessels — of 65 feet and over in size. The actual number is obscured because some vessels, mainly those in the private-commercial sector, double as fishing, oil industry, commercial, and recreational vessels. Using a criteria of about 80 feet (25 meters) in length, the total number of U.S. research vessels requiring certification under the International Load Line Convention iscurrently113ships. These can be further identified as: Federal and State University Commercial 43 25 45 Total 113 Public Law 89-99 defines oceanographic research vessels as follows: The term "oceanographic research vessel" means a vessel which the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating finds is being employed exclusively in instruction in oceanography or limnology, or both, or exclusively in oceanographic research, including, but not limited to, such studies pertaining to the sea as seismic, gravity meter and magnetic exploration and other marine geophysical or geological surveys, atmospheric research, and biological research. The law further states that such vessels are not deemed to be engaged in trade or commerce. As such, these vessels occupy a unique status so long as they are "employed exclusively" in oceanographic research or instruction. Unfortunately, there is no readily available list of such vessels from the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) because any registrations have been included within a broader category of "miscellaneous." Furthermore, by virtue of the phrase "not engaged The Carnegie was perhaps the first academic research vessel in American service. Built of nonmagnetic materials, she was operated by the Carnegie Institution from 1909 until 7929. in trade or commerce" there is no legal requirement for USCG documentation. Many research ships, chiefly university, are numbered under state boating laws for the sake of convenience. Public vessels (federally operated) also are not documented, their definition resting with the operating agency. Although the technical definition is clear, some confusion a rises as to whet her oil exploration vessels are, in fact, oceanographic research vessels. Obviously, many industrial oil exploration and exploitation vessels are not considered to be research vessels. The USCG Register lists the latter as a category separate from "miscellaneous," and it would appear that the exclusion of industrial oil prospecting vessels is reasonable and valid. Recent Coast Guard regulations now require ships (other than public vessels) to receive and carry USCG letters of designation. The numbers of federal ships in the national inventory are listed as follows: U.S. Navy 12 National Ocean Su rvey ( NOAA) 23 U.S. Coast Guard 1 U.S. Geological Survey 1 Environmental Protection Agency 2 National Science Foundation 1 State 3 Total 43 Because of increased costs and obsolescence, the number of federal ships has been reduced over the last several years. The Navy, for example, shows a reduction in inventory from 16 to 12 ships over the last decade. Not included in the federal list are five Coast Guard icebreakers that are valuable, and indeed the only, surface platforms for the conduct of research in polar waters. Most federal ships are large (more than 200 feet) compared to university ships or commercial ships (less than 20 percent are more than 200 feet). There presently are no ships under construction or planned for the federal fleet although about a fourth of them are rapidly approaching obsolescence. Ships operated by commercial and industrial concerns, either for their own use or on a charter basis, are not as well defined as federal or academic ships. They are nevertheless an important asset to the nation's resources and often represent an essential capability not found in either of the other two sectors. A study of the role of commercial oceanographic vessels was conducted in 1974 by Norman B. Pigeon. He found that although commercial ships may be documented as oceanographic research vessels many are not registered as such because they are multipurpose. Those that are registered as oceanographic vessels fall in the Coast Guard "miscellaneous" category. Based on more than 800 solicitations, about 116 ships of all sizes were considered by their operators to be oceanographic research vessels. Of these, 79 were accepted within the definition after arbitrarily excluding vessels used exclusively in petroleum exploitation or exploration. Considering only seagoing ships longer than 25 meters length overall and updating in the light of recent budget constraints, approximately 45 ships can be now identified as commercial oceanographic research vessels, including the deep-sea drilling ship Glomar Challenger (see page 72). This fleet is composed mostly of ships that have been converted from other purposes with a majority of vessels oriented toward applied research, chiefly geophysical. On the international scene, research ships are mostly government-operated. Using ship size criteria similar to the foregoing, it is estimated that some 72 nations operate about 720 oceanographic research vessels. Nations operating 10 or more seagoing ships are listed in Table 1. The principal difference between the United States research fleet and that of other nations is the foreign emphasis on fisheries research vessels. The Soviet Union, for example, operates an estimated 60 fisheries research vessels compared to nine for the United States. Size is another factor: in 1972, 24 Soviet oceanographic ships made port calls in the U.S. with tonnage totaling 115,000. This compared with 116,000 tons for the 45 largest U.S. ships. History of the U.S. University Fleet The history of the United States academic fleet goes back to the origins of the laboratories that the ships serve. Obviously, an oceanographic laboratory must have access to capable, seagoing ships. In the years before World War 1 1 , most such access was on government ships, and then only infrequently. Notable exceptions were the Carnegie (Carnegie Institution), E. W. Scripps (Scripps Institution of Oceanography), Velero (University of Southern California), Atlantis (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution — see page 36), and Catalyst (University of Washington). These ships and perhaps several more like them form the history of the fleet we know today. During the war, the importance of marine research became clearly recognized, particularly that related to acoustic studies. Following the war, a national oceanographic program was launched at both the federal and university level. By 1950, surplus ships being plentiful, more than a dozen ships were operated by a similar number of laboratories. The federal government had assumed the role of supporting basic science. In particular, the Office of Naval Research can be singled out for guiding and supporting oceanographic research. Table 1 . Countries operating 1 0 or more seagoing ships. Argentina 10 Australia 10 Brazil 12 Canada 25 France 27 Germany 15 Italy 10 Japan 94 Sweden 1 1 Britain 39 United States 115 Soviet Union 194 All others (60) 158 Total 720 Source: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) the International Oceanographic Commission (IOC). In 1960, the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography (NASCO) issued a milestone report on the future of oceanography. The report recommended that the numbers of university ships be increased to 22 during the decade 1960-1970 and that a federally-sponsored ship construction program replace aging World War II vessels. By 1970, the fleet stood at 24 ships, including 13 new ones constructed especially for oceanographic research. By this time, the operation of academic research ships had become "big business" with the National Science Foundation assuming a major share of sponsorship. From this grew a need for closer relations between the university ship operators. "Coordination," "effective utilization," "cost accounting," and "uniform standards" all became the paternal buzzwords of a government concerned with the shrinking federal budget dollar. The Birth of UNOLS In 1971 , following a year of contacts between federal agencies and the academic community, the University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) was established. The functions of UNOLS are to coordinate the scheduling of research ships and to seek opportunities for scientists who do not have direct access to ships to go to sea. It also serves as a forum for institutions to work together in the effective use, assessment, and planning for oceanographic facilities. In the decade 1970-1980, UNOLS proved to bea highly useful mechanism forforgingatruefleet of ships. Its roles have included joint ship scheduling, costanalyses, safety standards, internal inspection and assessments, new ship planning, and the collection of statistics for the federal government. During this period, eight new ships were delivered to the fleet and team efforts fended off several budget crises. The membership is defined as those academic institutions that operate significant federally-funded oceanographic facilities. At the present time, the membership is comprised of 18 institutions. These are shown in Table 2. In addition, about 40 smaller labs hold associate membership and participate in the use and planning of seagoing science facilities. Research vessels within this structure range from large, worldwide cruising ships to small day boats. The "seagoing fleet" generally is defined as vessels of more than 80 feet in length, capable of sustained research voyages. These ships presently number 25 (Table 2). This number is down from a peak of 30 ships in 1975. Despite this, the newer ships are generally felt to represent an increased overall capability. However, there is considerable concern among fleet operators that the present federal funding climate will result in continued reductions, especially in the larger ships, diminishing the fleet's effectiveness. The R/V Melville shown here and her sister ship, the R/VKnorr,arefr)e largest vessels in the university fleet. These U.S. Navy-owned ships are operated by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Cycloidal propulsion gives these vessels extraordinary maneuverability for handling heavy arrays at sea. (Photo courtesy of Scripps) 8 Table 2. University fleet — 1 982 (more than 80 feet LOA). Ship's Name Length (ft.) Built/ Converted Crew/ Scientists Owner Operating Laboratory Large Ships Melville 245 Knorr 245 Atlantis II 210 T. G. Thompson 208 T. Washington 208 Conrad 208 1970 1969 1963 1965 1965 1963 22/26 24/25 24/25 22/19 19/23 25/18 U.S. Navy U.S. Navy W.H.O.I.* U.S. Navy U.S. Navy U.S. Navy Scripps W.H.O.I. W.H.O.I. U. Washington Scripps Lamont-Doherty (Columbia U.) Intermediate Ships Oceanus 177 1975 12/12 N.S.F. W.H.O.I. Wecoma 177 1975 12/16 N.S.F. Oregon State U. Endeavor 177 1976 12/16 N.S.F. U. Rhode Island Gyre 174 1973 11/18 U.S.Navy Texas A. & M. Columbus Iselin 170 1972 12/13 U.Miami* U. Miami New Horizon 170 1978 12/13 S.I.O. Scripps Fred H. Moore 165 1967/1978 9/20 U. Texas U. Texas Kana Keoki 156 1967 12/16 U. Hawaii U. Hawaii Small Ships Cape Florida 135 1981 9/10 N.S.F. U. Miami Cape Hatteras 135 1981 9/12 N.S.F. DukeU. Alpha Helix 133 1965 12/12 N.S.F. U. Alaska Ida Green 130 1965/1972 7/12 U. Texas U. Texas Cape Henlopen 122 1975 6/12 U. Delaware U. Delaware Velero IV 110 1948 11/12 U.S.C. U. Southern California Ridgely Warfield 106 1967 8/10 J.H.U.* Johns Hopkins U. E. B. Scripps 95 1965 5/8 S.I.O. Scripps Cayuse 80 1968 7/8 N.S.F. Moss Landing Marine Lab Longhorn 80 1971 5/10 U. Texas U. Texas Laurentian 80 1974 5/8 U. Michigan U. Michigan *Although title is held by the operator, ship construction was funded by the National Science Foundation, which holds a conditional lien on the title. Abbreviations: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (W.H.O.I.); Scripps Institution of Oceanography (S.I.O.); National Science Foundation (N.S.F.); and Oregon State University (O.S.U.). The UNOLS Fleet The UNOLS fleet can be divided into three size categories: large Ships. These are 200-footers and above. There are six of these, three based on the West Coast and three in the Atlantic. They make major oceanographic expeditions of long duration and carry 20 to 25 scientists with a like number of crew. Capable of cruising 250 to 280 days at sea a year on extended voyages of 25 to 35 days, these ships constitute the real strength of the nation's excellence in basic oceanographic research. Obsolescence and budget constraints have reduced a 1975 inventory of nine ships to the present six. In the total fleet picture, these will be firstto reach retirementage, beginning attheend of the 1980s. Intermediate. These ships range from 150 to 200 feet in size and carry 12 to 16 scientists and a crew of about 12. The eight ships in this size, all relatively new, arethe workhorses of the fleet. Fast, efficient, and capable, they are used for shorter oceanic cruises — 2 to 3 weeks. Lower operating costs make these ships popular with funding sponsors. Unfortunately, theyare limited by the sea statethey can operate in, laboratory and storage space, and endurance. Small Vessels. Eleven ships of this class range from about 80 feet to 150 feet in length and usually are considered coastal vessels. Because they carry from Intermediate-sized vessels are the workhorses of the fleet. The R/V Endeavor, operated by the University of Rhode Island, is one of three sister ships among a total of seven newer vessels of this size. The sister ships are owned by the National Science Foundation. (Photo courtesy of University of Rhode Island) 9 to 12 scientists on short cruises of one to two weeks duration with rapid turnarounds at relatively low cost, these ships are popular for small projects near shore. This characteristic probably allows greater access to sea by scientists than that provided by either of the larger classes. Not included in the classes discussed or in the UNOLS fleet proper are the numerous institution vessels of less than 80 feet, usually between 40 and 65 feet. These boats, estimated at some 70 in number and located at about 50 laboratories along both coasts and in the Great Lakes, arean important resource for localized research, student training, and inshore research. About half of the 25 university ships, including almost all of the larger ships, are owned outright by the government. They are given to the operating institutions in trust under a "charter-party" agreement. Design and supervision of new ship construction has included personnel from the academic community. In fact, many of the newer ships have been planned and designed through UNOLS arrangements. Data on academic fleet size classes are shown in Table 3. Cost Factors All academic research vessels carry complex deck equipment, such as winches, cables, and cranes. It is not uncommon nowadays to launch and lower an instrument array valued at $100,000 on a slender wire with a safety factor of 1.2 and in a rolling seaway. Winches include the smaller "hydrographic" type that can handle solid or conducting cable in lengths up to 30, 000 feet, lowering deep instrument packages up to half a ton. Table 3. Data on university vessels by size class. Over 200 Ft. 150-200 Ft. 80-1 50 Ft. No. in fleet 6 8 11 Ave. length overall 220ft. 1 70 ft. 113ft. Ave. disp. tonnage 1 ,680 tons 950 tons 320 tons Ave. age 1 6 years 8 years 1 2 years Science complement 22 persons 1 5 persons 1 0 persons Crew 22 persons 1 2 persons 8 persons No. cruises/year 9 cruises 12 cruises 22 cruises Ave. cruise duration 30 days 20 days 10days Total days at sea 270 days 250 days 220 days Annual oper. cost $2,800,000 $1,625,000 $814,000 Daily rate $10,500/day $6,500/day $3,700/day Scientist/day $477 $433 $370 Ave. replacement cost/ per ship $14M $7M $3M 10 • In addition to the regular 25-ship university fleet, many labs operate small day boats for local research and student training. Shown here is the 55- foot Onrust operated by the State University of New York at Stony Brook. (Photo courtesy of SUNY) These winches have become precision machines; cables must be spooled to tolerances of thousandths of an inch to prevent damage to wire elements. Bottom coring, trawling, and the new larger deep-towed arrays require more massive winches, handling Vi-inch and larger cables, but with the same precision. A new hydrographic winch can cost $165,000; a large coring and trawling winch will approach $500,000. Fortunately, winches and other deck machinery, if given good care, last a long time. Many of the winches in use today have been handed down from earlier ships and often are older than the crewmen who operate them. Unfortunately, most of these winches are now in need of replacement. Wire cables also must be replaced — normally after 2 to 3 years use, but sometimes more frequently. The cost of a 30,000-foot reel of 0.68-inch armored coaxial cable is $66,000. Other equipment is equally complex and expensive. This includes hull-mounted, phased-array, precision echo-sounders for sea-floor mapping — $750,000; towed acoustical arrays up to a mile long — $250,000; and deep-towed bottom scanning systems — $365,000. Some costs are coming down. For example, satellite navigators, uniqueto research and high-technology vessels in 1970 once cost about $70, 000 and now can be bought for about $23,500. But this is more the exception than the rule. Although ship operating costs are an integral part of the overall price of conducting science at sea, traditionally these costs are broken out separately and carefully scrutinized; in all, they represent between 20 and 30 percent of the total research dollar (Table 4). A closer look at present trends for ship operations is shown in Table 5. Two ships have been temporarily laid up for 1982 in order to meet the constraints of the shrinking budget dollar. Last year one ship was laid up. Table 4. Federal support of university oceanographic research ($M). Year Research Ship Operations Ships 1960 $ 16.3 $ 3.3 12 1965 38.0 5.9 18 1970 53.8 11.9 26 1975 89.4 19.7 32 1980 109.1 25.3 28 Research ships have been exposed to most of the high inflation trends. They are skilled-labor intensive, fuel dependent, and subject to the steel and high-technology markets. In the face of this, ships have resorted to deferred preservation and maintenance — a most unrecommended practice but necessary for survival. Based on UNOLS cost analyses of 28 ships, Table 6 provides a profile of 1980 ship operations costs. Ship funding support on the average has increased about 11 percent a year. In general, this funding has kept pace with costs, although several year-to-year aberrations have occurred. However, a current combination of cost progression and federal budget constraints have brought about a crisis in the fleet. Only by a turnaround in current funding trends can further ship reductions be averted. What to do is a source of controversy. One side argues that ships, especially the large ocean-going types, are a valuable national resource and should be preserved even if it involves "moth balling. "The more pragmatic view holds that if funded science does not make full demands on the fleet, the trend toward smaller, and probably fewer, ships should continue. A myriad of government and community studies have and are continuing to examine the problem. Proposed alternatives include redistribution of ships, joint operations through 11 Table 5. Current trends in ship operations support. Proj. Source 1979 1980 1981 1982 National Science Foundation $16.5M $18.2M $21. OM $20.2M Office of Naval Research 2.6 3.3 3.1 3.4 Other (DOE*, state, NASA, misc.) 4.2 3.8 4.7 4.8 Total $23.3M $25.3M $28.8M $28.4M 'Department of Energy closer UNOLS-like operations, and suggested cirteria for ship retentions or retirements. In an effortto recapture the regime broughtabout by the highly regarded 1960 NASCO Report, the National Academy of Sciences' Ocean Sciences Board has commissioned a study to examine and recommend the role of academic research vessels over the next decade. Not all problems faced by present-day research vessels are the result of budget constraints or the inability of ships to keep pace with growing science demands. International politics is taking its toll. Foreign nations are now requiring research ships to obtain permission to do science inside 200 nautical miles from their shores. Approximately 40 percent of the world ocean lies within somebody's 200-mile zone, and to properly study that ocean it is necessary to operate in thosezones. Scientists have put forth the proposition that published basic science not involving resource exploitation is for the benefit of all mankind and should be allowed to proceed unhindered. This idea has not been accepted by many coastal nations. The seeking of necessary clearances has proven to be a difficult, uncertain, and often frustrating task. On occasion, research vessels have been prohibited from Table 6. Ship operation costs (1 980 — 28 UNOLS ships). Item Cost ($K) Crew salaries $ 9,099 36 Marine staff 1,516 6 Maintenance 1,011 4 Overhaul 1,264 5 Fuel 5,307 21 Food 1,263 5 Insurance 638 2 Travel 401 2 Supplies, stores, misc. 2,527 10 Overhead 2,774 9 Total expenses $25,276 entering the waters of nations where the results of their work might have benefited that nation. The International Conference on the Law of the Sea is seeking a solution to this problem, but the outlook is not bright. The foregoing pages may have darkened the reader's hopes for the future. But there is good news. Equipment deficiencies and needs for replacement are now recognized as priority matters by federal agencies. New ships are being planned. Conceptual designs are underway for large-ship replacement, where the need by the end of this decade is well recognized. Designs for vessels will explore new possiblities, including the use of sails and the semisubmerged ship (see pages 15 and 64). The concept of sail-assisted vessels is a product of the energy crisis; they have little attraction other than fuel-saving. This, however, can be enormous. Recognizing that fuel represents more than 20 percent of the cost of operation of a conventional ship (a proportion that probably will increase), the possibility of using sails again is attractive. Semisubmerged (SSS) or small waterplane area twin-hull (SWATH) ships are deserving of serious study for applications to oceanographic research. Such ships are highly stable and provide enormous deck and laboratory areas for their size. Models are already in use in the offshore oil industry. Along with a new generation of large ships, new smaller vessels also can be expected to join the fleet. Experience already gained with the Cape Florida (small) and Oceanus (intermediate) classes demonstrate that ships designed from the keel up for oceanography rather than conversions are more effective facilities. Specialized ships also are on the drawing boards. The well-recognized need for a polar research vessel has resulted in a design supported by the National Science Foundation. Probably with slow progress at first, the awareness of polar science ultimately will lend momentum to this concept. High-technology seagoing platforms also are 12 Artist's conception of a sailing research ship. Increasing fuel costs make such concepts an attractive feature. Other suggested designs include a "sail-assist" rig. Advanced designs under consideration include semisubmerged ships, which have extremely stable sea characteristics and large deck areas. New designs include a polar research vessel, long considered a gap in U.S. capability. This proposed 225-foot LWL ship is intended for work in arctic and antarctic waters. 13 being proposed. An example of this is a "flippable" barge for ocean engineering support. These platforms combine the high stability and deep penetration of a f/./P-ship with submersible support capability. This latter need, brought about by the recent, exciting discoveries of Alvin and Angus (see page 30), has led to general agreement that a new support vessel is a national priority. All in all, science at sea is alive and well. Old problems, yet unsolved, await further study and new problems will arise each step of the way. All of these require improved ship facilities and trained sea-going personnel. The real question facing the university fleet is not coping with the present, but gearing up for the future. Robertson Dinsmore is Chairman of Facilities and Marine Operations at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Selected Readings Ferment in the fleet. 1980. Mosaic magazine, National Science Foundation, Vol. II, No. 2, April. lane's Ocean Technology. 1979-80. Jane's Yearbooks, London. Janis, M. W. and D. C. F. Daniel. 1974. The USSR: ocean use and ocean law. Law of the Sea Institute occasional paper No. 21. Nelson, S. B. 1971. Oceanographic Ships Fore & Aft. Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy. Oceanography in the USSR. 1974. Navy fact sheet, issued by Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy. Oceanography 1960 to 1970, a report by the Committee on Oceanography. 1959. National Academy of Sciences. Pigeon, N. B. 1974. Commercial Oceanographic vessels. Marine affairs seminar, University of Rhode Island, Kingston. The Use of Sailing Ships for Oceanography. 1981. Ocean Sciences Board, National Research Council. Personnel transfer capsule. Deep Submergence Research Vessel (DSRV). General purpose capsule. High-technology concepts include a "flippable" barge that cruises in the horizontal mode but converts to a subsurface motionless laboratory. This FLIP-ship includes submarine tending capability. 14 The Case for Semisubmerged Research Ships The SSP Kaimalino. This 90-foot semisubmerged platform (SSP) was built by the U.S. Navy. (U.S. Navy photo) by Allyn C. Vine /Vlore than most scientific and engineering professions, oceanography depends heavily on a few essential tools. The most essential tool has been the ship. The requirements for global oceanography include the ability to operate in all weathers and all seasons, far from home base and logistic support. Other major tools, such as buoys, satellites, and aircraft, are extremely important but usually require supplementary shipborne work to produce effective overall results. Figure 1 indicates how progress is made up of a mix of new ideas, new techniques, and new data about the ocean. The ship frequently dictates both what work a scientist or engineer dares to attempt and then how well that work can be accomplished. In order to build upon the accomplishments of the previous two or three decades, it is apparent that some oceanographic ships should be significantly upgraded for research and development in the 1980s and 1990s. And new ships will have to be NEW IDEAS THEORIES NATIONAL INTEREST NEW TECHNIQUES ANALYSIS Figure 7. Interdependency of ideas, techniques, and data. 15 designed with the future in mind. One possible design is that of the semisubmerged catamaran. To understand why this type of ship deserves serious consideration, we must take a look at what future oceanographers are likely to need. Heavy Weather Capability Scientists and engineers have evolved and used much excellent equipment that works well in good weather, but in rough weather performance degrades seriously and the loss rate increases. As a result, oceanographers have tended to study northern areas during the summer and southern areas during the winter. For some research this is satisfactory, but for others it is not. For instance, this practice has warped the view of how weather, currents, and marine life behave. The economics of both time and dollars dictate a minimum of transit time. The more capable and productive the ship, the longer she can profitably remain working when transient storms or seasonal weather arrives. Perhaps equally important is that a ship capable of working in heavy weather would encourage scientists and engineers to build better instruments and to plan more efficient operations. Such a ship must be able to handle large apparatus such as nets, small submersibles,and large acoustic transducers used to survey marine life in the water and sediments beneath the bottom. Past research has given many valuable results. It also has furnished clues for future research and development. Two examples that encompass work on a global scale are: Weather and Climate. The interrelatedness of ocean, atmosphere, weather, and climate has become clearer each decade. Weather and climate in North America are heavily dependent on currents and temperatures in the North Pacific, whereas weather and climate in Europe are heavily dependent on conditions in the North Atlantic. Similar situations prevail in the southern hemisphere. Significantly improved prediction will require year-round monitoring of the heat content and air-sea interchange of windy ocean areas to supplement satellite observations. Plate Tectonics. An old theory of continental drift has matured into the geologic concept of plate tectonics. As the dozen great geologic plates on the earth's surface move slowly around, there are many geologically active areas that are being formed and reformed with accompanying concentration of chemicals and minerals from the earth's interior. Distortion of the plates has produced many exposed faults that may show the earth's geologic history. Examining and prospecting these worldwide underwater features with finesse and economy will require ships well-suited for the purpose. Ship-Buoy-Satellite Triad Seldom is there a trio of techniques that supplement each other as well as ships, buoys, and satellites. Judiciously used, each can compensate for some of the weaknesses of the others. Together, they permit frequent measurements from above and below the surface. Figure 2 indicates the increasing variety of buoys and their uses. For example, there may be more geologic buoys used in 1992 than are now used in physical oceanography. Emphasis should be placed on ships designed to capitalize on the ship-buoy-satellite partnership, which in turn would encourage scientists and engineers to build better buoys and position and maintain them at the best locations. (a) MEASUREMENT TRIAD (b) Figure 2. Mutual dependency of satellites, buoys, and ships (a). Examples of types and functions of buoys (b). 16 Cost Effectiveness The cost-effectiveness of a ship is, of course, its overall effectiveness divided by its overall costs. Both of these numbers are somewhat elusive and certainly debatable. However, most of the factors involved are sufficiently straightforward to allow reasonable estimates. Making these estimates should be of great value in deciding what mix of conventional and specialized ships appears optimum. The new powered ships probably should be longer and leaner, so that present-day speeds can be maintained with smaller engines and less fuel. Stability and roll-reduction may need to be improved through different ballasting and hydrodynamic roll-damping methods. Low-powered, modern sailing ships are intriguing, and they seem almost certain to be cost-effective for some work in some places (see page 64). Faster winches and other instruments that permit rapid lowering and raising could reduce time on station, thus permitting time for either more travel or more stations. However, being able to continue work when the wind picks up remains one of the most important capabilities of a cost-effective research ship. Semisubmerged Ships The idea of building a twin-hulled vessel with the hulls submerged or nearly submerged, and then having slender, streamlined towers to support a large, rectangular living and working space well above the waves is quite old. Fortunately, about 10 years ago the U.S. Navy built a 90-foot, high-speed, light-duty experimental ship, Ka//na//m>, and the Dutch built a similar-sized, low-speed, heavy-duty ship called Duplus for North Sea oil rig support. Both the racehorse model and the workhorse model have been operating for years, and now there are newer models on the scene, such as the Japanese high-speed passenger ferry, Mesa 80 (Figure 3). Because surface waves only intersect this type of hull at the small struts, they tend to pass through the ship rather than break over it. There is little bow wave and little stern wave, and these ships do well at maintaining speed in windy weather. Also, the natural pitch and roll periods can be made longer than a normal wave period so that the semisubmerged ship will not roll or pitch as violently as a conventional ship. These principles are applicable to coastal waters as well as high seas. In fact, alonga windward coastlinethe waves can be larger and more confused than in mid ocean. A ship to be considered seriously for extended work in rough seas might be about 200 feet long by 100 feet wide with a speed of perhaps 10 knots. The main hulls would be some 15 feet underwater, and the living spaces some 15 feet Figure 3. Mesa 80, a Japanese high-speed semisubmerged catamaran (SSC) passenger ferry. above water. With its easy motion and large, rectangular deck spaces, this ship should be able to handle large equipment, transducers, nets, submersibles, or workboats over the side, over the stern, or through a large centerwell. Preassembled instrument frames and tanks up to 50 feet in diameter could be lowered to the ocean bottom to permit complex observations and sampling. Semisubmerged ships should facilitate the consideration, design, and handling of large workboats that could conduct nearby operations and surveys at the same time the large ship is working. For some operations these satellite boats could at least double the project's efficiency. In short, compared to present-day monohull research ships such a semisubmerged catamaran would be less limiting in the gear it could take and the places it could operate. Compared to a conventional ship of the same size, a semisubmerged ship would probably be 30 percent more expensive to build, but presumably would be 50 percent more effective. Twenty years ago the country made a major commitment to a national oceanographic program that led to great innovations in ships and instruments alike. Whatever financial commitment may lie ahead, the mix of new ships should include constructive innovation. Semisubmerged catamarans are excellent contenders to be included in this mix. Allyn C. Vine is a Scientist Emeritus in the Department of Geology and Geophysics, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. He participated in the design of the submersible Alvin, which was named after him. Acknowledgments Particular thanks are due Jonathan Leiby, a naval architect, and Paul Rodarmor, a sea-going specialist, both of Woods Hole. Numerous engineers and administrators from the U.S. Navy and from companies designing and operating semisubmerged ships were helpful with information, photographs, and advice. 17 Submersibtes: PAST - by Eugene Allmendinger They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters; these see the works of the Lord, and his wonders in the deep. Psalms 107:23-24 J ince ancient times, man has had the desire and the need to penetrate aquatic environments for military, scientific, industrial, and recreational purposes. In pursuit of these activities, he has developed an amazing array of underwater vehicles, which, in general, are referred to as submarines andsubmersibles. Submarine is the term usually reserved for the large, self-sufficient, manned underwater vehicle that has been used almost exclusively for military missions. By contrast, submersible is used forthe relatively small, manned or unmanned underwater vehicle that is heavily dependent on supporting systems, such as a surface ship, to accomplish peaceful underwater missions. History, from thefifth century B.C. until fairly recent times, is replete with legendary and factual accounts of underwater vehicles, their builders, and their exploits. Perhaps the underwater adventures of Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.) form a logical starting point. One drawing depicts him observing the wonders of the Aegean Sea from a diving bell apparently made of glass. Despite this ancient precedent for peaceful underwater pursuits, it was not until recent years that underwater vehicles were used extensively for other than military missions. Early History of the Submarine One of the earliest underwater vehicles designed for warfare was a leather-covered rowboat built by a Dutch scientist, Cornelius van Drebble, about 1620. It is said that he successfully demonstrated his boat on the Thames River with no less a personage on - Alexander the Great observing the wonders of the Aegean Sea from inside a glass diving bell (322 B.C.). board than King James I of England, divingtodepths of 3 to 5 meters and remaining submerged for a few hours. The Turtle, built by American colonist David Bushnell during the Revolutionary War, made the first recorded attack of a submersible on an enemy warship, the HMS Eagle, in New York harbor in 1776. The plan was to bore into the ship's hull to attach a spar torpedo. Success was thwarted when the operator found the ship's bottom was copper-plated. A few feet from his position was the unplated rudder post — and possible success. The attempt, however, frightened the British into moving the fleet's anchorage to more protected waters. Robert Fulton's Nautilus, the first of several submarines to bear the same name, was sail-powered on the surface and man-powered submerged. He successfully demonstrated its military attributes to Napoleon, blowing up a bridge on the Seine River in 1800. The Emperor, however, 18 PRESENT- FUTURE m DSRV Alvin, operated by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, can dive to depths of 4, 000 meters. The Epaulard,an example of an unmanned, untethered autonomous vehicle controlled by acoustic commands. remained indifferent to this unorthodox method of naval warfare, which caused Fulton to shift his attention to England. He built a larger craft and in 1806 attempted to sell it to the British Admiralty through the good offices of William Pitt. Again rejected, a frustrated Fulton returned home to be recorded in history for building the steamboat Claremont. TheHunf ley was one of several "David-class" submersibles built by the Confederate Navy during the Civil War in a desperate attempt to break the Union Navy's blockade of southern ports. This craft made the world's first successful attack on an enemy warship, sinking the Federal corvette Housatonic in Charleston harbor in 1864. It was a cadmean victory, however, both vessels being lost in the encounter. The development of the modern submarine began in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the U.S. Navy commissioning its first submarine, the USS Holland, in April of 1900. While the Holland's performance and safe operation were jeopardized by the use of a gasoline engine for propulsion, its hull shape was remarkably similar to that required for minimum submerged resistance. The submarine came of age i n September of 1914 when the German U-9 astounded the world by sinking the British cruisers Aboukir, Cressy, and Hogue within a period of a few minutes. Since that fateful day, the submarine has been recognized increasingly as a major arm of the world's leading navies, with all aspects of its design, construction, and operation undergoing continuous improvement. The U.S. Navy's so-called "fleet boat" epitomized America's submarine development stage at the end of World War II. The submarine to this point in its history might more appropriately have been called a "submersible torpedo boat," it being essentially a surface vessel that could operate submerged for relatively short intervals of time. This severe constraint was imposed, of course, by the need on the part of the crew and the diesel engine 19 .-fl The Nautilus, built by Robert Fulton, was demonstrated to Napoleon in 7800. The Turtle, built during the Revolutionary War, was the first submersible to attack an enemy warship. The U.S.S. Holland was the U.S. Navy's first submarine. A cutaway view of the U.S.S. Holland, showing its interior arrangement and hull shape. 20 for frequent access to oxygen. Burdened with this constraint, designs emphasized surface-operating characteristics as embodied in the "fleet boat" — a long, slender hull to reduce wave-making resistance encountered at or near the surface as well as a superstructure and numerous appendages to improve seakeeping and facilitate surface operations. The advent of nuclear power and the less-heralded oxygen generator in postwar years removed the need for extensive time on the surface, thus making possible the development of the "true submarine" as initially envisoned by Jules Verne — a vessel that could operate submerged for almost unlimited periods of time. No longer obliged to acknowledge wave-making resistance, which disappears at deep depths, and surface operating priorities, designs could now stress submerged performance. This led to the development of a "Cod's head and mackerel tail"* hull form uncluttered with extensive superstructure and appurtenances in order to minimize submerged resistance and improve high-speed maneuvering. TbeUSSAlbacore, with its streamlined hull, and the USS Nautilus, the world's first nuclear submarine, initiated the "true submarine" trend. * A phrase often used in describing the ideal hydrodynamic hull-form. Modern Submersible Development Modern submersible development began in the early 1930s, being initiated principally by scientific research interests. These interests, of course, had existed for many preceding decades, but had been pursued primarily from on board such famous surface ships as the Beagle, Challenger, and Meteor. Now, scientists were becoming even more inquisitive, wanting to see for themselves just what was transpiring beneath the waves. A tethered submersible called a bathysphere (deep sphere) was built in 1930 to serve this purpose. It was a thick-walled steel ball with fused quartz viewports. William Beebe, azoologist, used the bathysphere in 1934 to descend to a record depth of 923 meters off Bermuda to study and photograph deep-sea life. World War II years saw underwater science and technology focus on submarine and anti-submarine warfare, and numerous developments of this period had direct impact on the designs of modern submersibles. The creation of a variety of new instruments and marine hardware made possible a dramatic increase in knowledge of the oceans — perhaps one of the most significantadvances being made in thefield of acoustics. Postwar years marked the advent of a strange new submersible called a bathyscaph (deep-boat) developed by August Piccard, a Swiss scientist, who A cutaway view of the Bathysphere used by William Beebe in his record dive of 1934, marking the beginning of modern submersible development. (Courtesy of National Geographic Society) TELEPHONE COIL & BATTERY BOX ENTRANCE TO BATHYSPHERE CENTRAL OBSERVATION WINDOW BAROMETER THERMOMETER HUMIDITY RECORDER LEFT OBSERVATION WINDOW (SEALED) OXYGEN TANK VALVE CABLE, CONTAINING ELECTRIC POWER LINE AND TELEPHONE WIRE STUFFING BOX — SWITCHBOX, CONTROL FOR BLOWER AND SEARCHLIGHT SEARCHLIGHT WINDOW SEARCHLIGHT OXYGEN TANK VALVE TELEPHONE OXYGEN TANKS • BLOWER, TRAYS & PAN, OF CHEMICAL APPARATUS FOR ABSORPTION OF CARBON DIOXIDE 21 VENT FLOODLAMPS BALLAST RELEASE MAGNET OBSERVATION GONDOLA A cutaway of the bathyscaph Trieste, which made the world's record dive to 70,97 5 meters in the Mariana Trench off Guam on January 23, 7960. (From Terry, The Deep Submersible, 1966) also developed the stratospheric balloon. The design of his first bathyscaph, called FNRS 2 after the Belgian research society funding the project, embodied principles used in the balloon. The "balloon" of the craft was a large, thin-skinned tank over the pressure hull filled with gasoline, which served as the buoyancy material. The FNRS 2 was redesigned by the French Navy to becomethe FNRS 3 — the forerunner of the Arch imede, a bathyscaph launched in 1961 for oceanographic research. Recent history of submersibles in the United States covers a period of about 30 years — from the early 1950s to the present. The period may be spoken of in terms of the "first and second generation" of submersibles — the first generation lasting until about 1973 and the second generation from 1973 to the present. Initiation of the first generation began in Italy in 1952 with the building of the bathyscaph Trieste by the Piccards. This vehicle was purchased by the U.S. Navy in 1953 and eventually, on January 23, 1960, made a historic dive to 10,915 meters in the Mariana Trench off Guam. This record depth has never been reached again by a submersible. The 1950s also saw the development of underwater systems by Jacques- Yves Cousteau, including his diving saucer, Denice, which was one of the first shallow-diving submersibles to be used in the United States during the early 1960s. To this point in its history, the submersible had been strictly a manned vehicle. The year 1960 marks the debut of the unmanned submersible. Until then, most underwater research data had Control panel Fiberglas outer casing lei Mercury ballast tank Pump Battery cases Hydraulic pistons rotate jets for maneuvering Cousteau 's diving saucer was one of the first small submersibles to be used in the United States. 22 MANNED SUBMERSIBLE VEHICLES ONE- ATMOSPHERE AMBIENT- PRESSURE DRY WET COMBINATION DIVER -LOCKOUT Major categories of manned submersibles. UNMANNED SUBMERSIBLE VEHICLES PRE- PROGRAMMED ACOUSTIC -CONTROLLED CABLE -CONTROL LED Major categories of unmanned submersibles. been acquired by suspending individual instruments from a surface ship, but increasingly sophisticated research now demanded that two or more instruments record data in a carefully coordinated manner. The solution, developed by Fred Spiess of Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California, was to mount all required instruments on a single frame, the total assembly being called a Fish, which was towed behind a ship at specified depths. The Fish enjoyed considerable success, especially when deployed from uniquely equipped research ships such as theM/zar, which is known for its successful role in the undersea searches for the ill-fated nuclear submarines USS Thresher and USS Scorpion and for the H-bomb lost off Palomares, Spain. Those successes notwithstanding, the unmanned submersible would not come into its own until the mid 1970s. A portion of the first generation, lasting from about 1963 to 1973, is sometimes rather descriptively subdivided into two phases — the "great expectations," ending in 1969, and the "doldrums," ending about 1973. Perhaps the key event initiating the first phase was the tragic loss of the Thresher on April 10, 1963. The Thresher's legacy was to focus national attention on the marine environment — on how much remained to be learned about it and how little work could be accomplished in its domain. The following years saw a great flurry of government and private activity and the formulation of a "national ocean program." One of the most prestigious and comprehensive documents produced was the Stratton Commission report, "Our Nation and the Sea," which advocated the development of underwater work systems with capabilities down to 6,098 meters. Commensurately, the heady "great expectation" years witnessed both large and small companies, many of them aerospace oriented, racing to establish themselves in some area of the submersible field. The thought prevailed that the federal government would support "inner space" research and development in a manner paralleling the support for its "outer space" program — that there might well be a "wet NASA" established. The Vice President in the spring of 1969 made it clear in a speech that the government had no such intention. Additionally, increasing pressures of the Vietnam War caused a reassessment of the Navy's submersible interests and a retrenchment in funding from this major source of support. Thus it was, with few other customers in sight, that the great expectations faded, many companies withdrawing from the field and some smaller ones failing in the process. Problems of this phase were compounded by the fact that many submersibles were built on speculation or to demonstrate company capabilities in the submersible field with the thought of improving future "bidder's list" standings. Designs were often based on mission requirements unrelated to well-identified markets- submersibles were constructed and then went looking for work. It is little wonder, then, that the "doldrums" would follow. This phase saw most submersibles laid-up or scrapped, and the industry in general reaching a low ebb of activity. The second generation of submersible activity, beginning about 1973, has seen submersibles come into their own, establishing themselves as necessary and effective components of systems for accomplishing a wide variety of underwater industrial, scientific, and military tasks. Their successes, it must be remembered, were, and continue to be, based on invaluable experiences gained in the design, construction, and operation of 23 CURRENT MAX DEPTH For MANNED, AMBIENT-PRESS. SUB SYSTEMS SEA CLIFFI] CURRENT MAX DEPTH For MANNED And UNMANNED SYSTEMS Maximum depth and portion of ocean floor reachable by second-generation submersibles. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 PERCENTAGE OF WORLD'S OCEAN FLOOR THAT CAN BE REACHED BY A SUBMERSIBLE WITH A SPECIFIED MAXIMUM OPERATING DEPTH 100 first-generation submersibles. Thus the phase of "great expectations," in which almost all of the first-generation submersibles were built, was not a lost cause. The successes were, for the most part, also based on well-defined markets and missions for submersible services that promoted a trend toward buildingspecialized vehicles ratherthanthe less-efficient, general-purpose submersibles of the first generation. Most markets for submersible services have been and are being created by the activities of the rapidly expanding offshore oil and gas industries. These activities have generated a wide variety of tasks, including 1) seafloor surveying for suitable footings for platforms and for pipeline routes; 2) assisting in the installation of seafloor structures, platforms, and pipelines; 3) monitoring of underwater activities; 4) inspection, maintenance, and repair of underwater structures and pipelines; and 5) providing assistance to divers. Notable scientific activities also have required submersible services. Some outstanding examples include 1) extensive seafloor mapping (NR-1, really a submarine rather than a submersible); 2) the 1974 French-American Mid-Ocean Undersea Study (FAMOUS) of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (Alvin, Archimede, and Cyana); and 3) the 1979 East Pacific Rise study, locating thermal vents surrounded by an amazing array of benthic organisms (Alvin). Manned and Unmanned Submersibles The term submersible has been used to this point without, or with few, qualifying adjectives. However, continued discussion of second- and potential third-generation submersibles necessitates a categorization of these vehicles. Although there is no universally accepted terminology for this purpose, Table 1 outlines the categories on which the following discussion is based and lists examples for each category. The two major categories are manned and unmanned submersibles. Principal types of manned submersibles include one-atmosphere, ambient-pressure, and combination vehicles that may be either un tethered or tethered to the support ship. Principal types of unmanned submersibles include untethered and tethered vehicles — either free from the support ship or connected to it or to an intermediate "vehicle garage" by a cable or fiber-optic link. Unmanned, untethered submersibles may be subtyped as either preprogrammed or autonomous — vehicle systems for which man may either be included or excluded from the "control loop." Unmanned, tethered submersibles may be subtyped as towed or self-propelled, but all of these include man in the "control loop." Forthis reason, these submersibles are almost always referred to as remotely operated vehicles (ROV), or remotely controlled vehicles (RCV). In a one-atmosphere vehicle, man is encapsulated in a thick-walled, shell structure called a pressure-hull, which allows his body to remain essentially at the same pressure throughout the dive. These hulls, which resist external pressure, may be cylindrical for relatively shallow depths, but must be spherical for deeper depths - the sphere being the more structurally efficient shape. Only the strength of the hull limits a one-atmosphere submersible in its depth capability (the world's two bathyscaphs, Trieste and Archimede, have descended to greater depths than Alvin's 4,000-meter capability. In an ambient-pressure vehicle, by contrast, man is still enclosed in a pressure-hull, but his body 24 is subjected to the ambient pressure at the work site. Unliketheone-atmospherevehicle, the hull of this vehicle can resist pressure from both withinand without. Ambient-pressure submersibles are depth-limited by man's limitations in withstanding hydrostatic pressure. In this regard, diver-depth records in hyperbaric laboratories currently exceed 610 meters, while the record at sea is somewhat more than 457 meters — "saturation diving" techniques and equipment being used in both instances. Ambient-pressure submersibles also include "wet" vehicles, such as the Waterdinger, on which divers ride through the water. These are usually called diver transport vehicles. Al so, one-atmosphereand ambient-pressure submersible characteristics may be combined in what is known generally as a diver lock-out vehicle. The vehicle operator (the pilot) and the person directing diver activities occupy the Table 1 . Types of Submersibles. A. Manned Submersibles 1 . One-atmosphere submersibles a. Untethered or free-swimming • Trieste • Alvin b. Tethered • Observation/work bell • ADS-atmospheric diving suit, Jim • Mantis 2. Ambient-pressure submersibles a. Untethered • Waterdinger — diver-assisted vehicles b. Tethered • Diving-bell or personnel transfer capsule 3. Diver lock-out submersibles — combination of 1 and 2 a. Untethered • Perry PC 1 801 • Johnson Sea-Link I & II b. Tethered • Mobile diving unit B. Unmanned Submersibles 1. Untethered submersibles a. Preprogrammed • Torpedo b. Autonomous • Epaulard (France) • Eave-East 2. Tethered submersibles — Remotely operated vehicles (ROV) a. Towed • Deep-Tow b. Self-propelled (1) 3DM — three-dimension mobility • CURV (2) 2DM — two-dimension mobility • ''bottom crawlers" one-atmosphere hull while divers occupy the ambient-pressure hull, as in the mobile diving unit. Untethered versions of this vehicle include the Perry P.C. 7807 and {he Johnson Sea-Link. Such a system conserves diver energy and time, especially when work sites are extended over a large area or long distance such as would be the case in a pipeline survey. Untethered and tethered manned submersibles embody design trade-offs, with the choice between them based on mission requirements and cost-effectiveness. Untethered submersibles, often called free-swimming vehicles, are completely free to move in three dimensions and descend uninhibited by the support ship's position or motion. However, they are obliged to carry their energy source (lead-acid and silver-zinc batteries) and life-support materials on board, thus adding very significantly to the vehicle's weight, size, complexity, and cost. Use of a tether permits an essentially unlimited supply of power and breathing gases, a lowering-lifting capability, and a superior (to sonar) "hard-wire" communicating ability. Consequently, tethered submersibles can be made lighter, smaller, and less complex than untethered submersibles, while submerged endurance and heavy-work capability are improved. On the other hand, mobility, maneuverability, and depth capability are now significantly more restricted with the vehicle being physically linked to the support ship. Additionally, tether drag inhibits vehicle motion, and the dangers of tether entanglement and breakage are always present, particularly if the work site is an underwater structure or is cluttered with obstacles. Unmanned submersible types also may be designated as untethered or tethered vehicles. Design trade-offs for these types parallel those already noted for manned submersibles with additional considerations created by man's absence from the vehicle — how to control its motion and work functions to accomplish mission tasks and how to transmit in situ information to a remote station. To date, these considerations have made the use of tethers mandatory for most vehicles. Tethers for these functions alone can be of small diameter and light weight, the ultimate being fiber-optic "threads." Untethered submersibles of the autonomous type have been receiving increased attention in the past few years. Mostly in the experimental stage at present, they show potential for eventually removing man from the "control loop" for many applications. The preprogrammed subtype of unmanned, untethered submersibles has existed since 1866 when Robert Whitehead's torpedo made its debut. This vehicle is told what to do prior to being released from man's control. It is capable of 25 executing predetermined decisions, the simplest example being a torpedo following a prescribed course at a specified depth. The essential difference between it and the autonomous submersible is that the lattercan both makeand execute decisions. This ability is the result of incredible developments in Observation /work bell, an example of a tethered, one-atmosphere, manned submersible. The Trieste as it appears today, configured to improve mobility and maneuverability. the fields of microprocessors/computers and associated software, robotics, and artificial intelligence. However, extremely difficult problems, including the inability of the prototypes to transmit large quantities of information through water, remain to be solved before the autonomous submersible can realize its full potential. The category of unmanned, tethered submersibles, as noted, includes towed and self-propelled subtypes, with the latter being further subdivided into three- and two-dimensional mobility (3DM and 2DM) vehicles. The towed vehicle is a descendant of the first Fish. It carries an instrument package and a TV camera that is connected to a TV monitor at the operator's station on the towing ship. A typical mission might involve an acoustic survey of a large area of the seafloor, during which the vehicle is "flown" at a constant height above the bottom. Whereas a towed vehicle must always be in motion, many needs also existfor capabilities of hovering, maneuvering, and three-dimensional self-mobility. The 3DM, commonly called a free-swimming vehicle, is equipped with thrusters that give it all of these capabilities. It is tethered to and remotely operated from a surface ship that is either stationary or moving with the submersible in a coordinated manner. The vehicle's mobility and maneuverability can be improved by not tethering it directly to the ship but to a "garage" from which it travels to the work site. The garage, in turn, is suspended from the ship — a particularly effective system for deeper depth work. This subtype is currently the most numerous of all submersibles, varying from a vehicle somewhat larger than a basketball, an underwater "eyeball" for observation only, to an automobile-sized 3DM used for the recovery of heavy objects from the seafloor. Finally, needs exist for vehicles that move primarily in two dimensions. These submersibles 26 1R"*> ..— • perception of trends in underwater mission requirements and upon the current status of submersibles. The offshore oil and gas industries are expected to continue to generate the vast majority of markets for submersible services with mission tasks being generally categorized as observation, survey, monitoring, maintenance and repair, operation of underwater equipment, delivery of payloads to the seafloor, underwater construction, and the underwater transporting and support of personnel. Three of several requirements associated with these tasks are singled out for brief comment: operating areas, depth capability, and limiting surface conditions. Regarding operating area and depth, it appears that most of the offshore tasks will continue to have today's requirements — operating areas in open waters at depths from shallow to 610 meters. However, certain activities can be expected to occur in areas of broken ice, icebergs, and under solid ice, areas that demand a rethinking of traditional submersible-surface ship linkage systems. Also, depths can be expected to increase for some tasks, perhaps to 1 ,830 meters as the industry goes further offshore in quest of oil and gas. Limiting surface conditions of poor weather and/or rough seas are, of course, closely associated with operational cost-effectiveness. Consequently, pressure to design systems with greater surface operating capabilities has been building throughout the second-generation period and will continue to build in the future, resulting primarily in improved launch and retrieval systems and better support-ship seakeeping characteristics. Limiting surface conditions also seems to have initiated a trend toward locating most or much of the oil/gas production and transportation systems on the seafloor. This trend has already begun with the help of today's submersibles in Jim, an example of an atmospheric diving suit (ADS) system. are designed for specialized tasks, examples including so-called "bottom crawlers" for digging pipeline and cable trenches and "ship-hull cleaners" that cling to the hull while working. These 2DM submersibles use tracks, wheels, or Archimedes' screws for movement and, in contrast with 3DM vehicles, are always negatively buoyant and supplied with power through the tether. Future Considerations Third-generation submersibles? Attempting to predict thefutureof these vehicles is an audacious undertaking, but perhaps a few thoughts on the next 10 years can be advanced based upon a The Mantis, an example of a tethered, self-propelled submersible for one man. 27 The mobile diving unit, an example of a tethered diver-lock-out submersible. CURV II, an unmanned, tethered submersible that is self-propelled and has three-dimensional mobility. establishing undersea production complexes. If it continues, it will have a profound effect on the development of third-generation submersibles. Future military and scientific missions will likely have many underwater tasks parallelingthose of the offshore industry. Mission requirements will reflect the need to perform at least some of these tasks under the arctic ice cap and down to a depth of 6,098 meters. The development of third-generation submersibles will be based, in large measure, on an extrapolation of experiences with second- generation vehicles. In this regard, the current status as well as the future potential of individual submersible types must be discussed. Deep Tow, a tethered, remotely operated vehicle developed by the Marine Physical Laboratory of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. 28 Manned versus unmanned submersibles has been a subject of debate since the late 1960s. It is a fact, however, that manned submersibles have been surpassed by unmanned submersibles for reasons that include lower vehicle and logistic support costs; great improvement in underwater instruments and manipulative capability; and the removal of anxieties and legal/regulatory considerations associated with man in the submersible. Consequently, the third generation will most likely see the continued ascendancy of unmanned over manned submersibles, but not to the exclusion of the latter. Manned submersibles will be used wherever man's presence is deemed necessary. There probably will remain intricate tasks, such as those which likely will be associated with the operation of a complete subsea production complex, which will require all of man's senses coordinated with his dexterity and mobility. If these complexes utilize one-atmosphere well-head enclosures and central collection centers, manned submersibles will be required for transportation of personnel to and between them. Furthermore, the trend to "break with the surface" may spark the development of non-military submarines to replace surface ships in the support of diving and other underwater activities. Under-ice missions also may call for the use of these large, manned vehicles to conduct or support operations. The development of the unmanned, autonomous submersible began in the late 1970s and may be expected to continue throughout the third generation and beyond. This vehicle holds promise for overcoming all of the disadvantages of tethers while retaining all the advantages of unmanned over manned submersibles. Of course, it also will be burdened by a limited on-board energy capacity and, at least initially, by limited two-way communications. Its use is seen for relatively low-energy missions, such as inspection and surveying, particularly under ice. Concerning through-water communications, two phases of development are foreseen — those of synoptic and real-time communications. Synoptic communications will permit the reception of limited in situ information — a broad overview of the site derived from various sensors on the submersible — but will be insufficient forvehicle control. Real-time communications, those in which there is no delay between the transmission of data from the submersible and its reception by the operator, will allow receipt of large amounts of detailed, perhaps continuously transmitted in situ information and remote control of the vehicle if desired. Consequently, the first phase will see limited, but useful, employment of the vehicle, whilethe second phase, which may be considerably longer in coming, will see the full potential of the autonomous vehicle realized. EAVE-EAST, an example of an unmanned, untethered autonomous submersible. Designed to perform inspection tasks, the vehicle can move up, down, forward, backward, and sideways. The first generation of submersibles was characterized as one of "great expectations," and the second as "coming of age." The third generation may well see submersibles "reaching maturity." Eugene Allmendinger is a member of the faculty of the Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire. Selected Readings Geyer, Richard A. 1977. Submersibles and Their Use in Oceanography and Ocean Engineering. Elsevier Oceanography Series. Terry, Richard D. 1966. The Deep Submersible. North Hollywood, CA: Western Periodicals Co. Undersea Vehicle Directory. 1981. Arlington, VA: Busby Associates, Inc. Busby, F. 1976. Manned Submersibles. Office of the Oceanographer of the U.S. Navy. Allmendinger, E. 1981. Identification of missions for potential unmanned untethered submersible systems. MTS/IEEE. 29 Argoand Jason by Robert D. Ballard txplorers of the oceans have historically argued about the pros and cons of manned and unmanned research craft. Both have been used extensively for valuable work. The unmanned vehicles have concentrated on regional underwater reconnaissance, while the manned submersible has utilized its high maneuverability to conduct detailed inspections and careful sampling tasks. In concert with one another, these two systems in recent years have made important discoveries about the ocean floor, particularly along the Mid-Ocean Ridge. Here, the studies have concentrated on the axial ridge of this mountain range, where great slabs of oceanic crust are slowly separated, generating a rift that is being tilled constantly by molten magma welling up from the earth's upper mantle. Associated with this upwelling process has been the discovery of hydrothermal springs situated directly above the underlying magma chamber system. In regions of the ridge where the rate of crustal separation exceeds 6 centimeters a year, this hydrothermal circulation has led to the formation of unique animal communities. In the center of many of these springs, high-temperature venting has led to the deposition of various sulfide minerals, containing silver, lead, copper, zinc, and other metals. Despite these important finds, we have investigated only small portions of the Mid-Ocean Ridge. This feature is the largest geological unit on earth. It stretches for a distance of 40,000 miles, threading its way through the majorocean basins of the world, covering 28 percent of the planet. After 10 years of intense investigation by both the United States and France, considerably less than 1 percent of the ridge has been carefully mapped. As we look to the future, particularly when we see the amount of available funds declining and the public interest turning toward more immediate gratifications, we must reassess our basic approach to underwater exploration. How can we do a better job for less? Fortunately, recent developments in technology Pages 30 and 31: The towed Argo-Jason system will one day transmit images of the seafloor via satellite to a data center ashore (right), a remote mobile unit (far right), and a shipboard control console (left). At lower right a conceptual drawing of the two vehicles shows how Jason and a television "imaging" pod will both be housed in Argo and lowered for use. Jason will be on a tether that will allow it to descend to the bottom for sampling and color TV closeups. The surface ship, by monitoring the terrain ahead of Argo with a Seabeam sonar system, will keep the towed vehicle at a safe altitude above the bottom. (Drawing by E. Kevin King) hold a promise, but first let us briefly review our present approach. To study the ocean floor in a meaningful manner, we must map its features at a variety of different scales, placing each observation in its proper perspective. Detailed inspection of the bark on a tree has no meaning unless you know the relationship of the tree to the forest. In other words, you must be able to zoom in and zoom back out easily. On land, one can stand on the rim of the Grand Canyon, taking in its size, and then walk down to the roaring rapids below, never losing one's orientation. In the ocean, this is not possible; the grand view has always been obtained with acoustical techniques that involve various sonar systems. In the ocean, we see not only with our eyes, but also with our ears. In our exploration of the Mid-Ocean Ridge, we have used a wide variety of tools, spanning the spectrum from large-area sonar systems to the human eye staring out the viewport of a submersible. At the heart of this effort, however, have been three phases of investigation. First, we have used sonars to make accurate maps of the complex underwater terrain. Upon loo king at these maps, wepinpointasegmentofthe rifted ridgethat we wish to investigate in detail. The second phase hasthen utilized towed, unmanned camera sledsto conduct reconnaissance profiles across the terrain. From these profiles have come detailed geologic maps of the rifted floor, showing the location of various lava flows, faults, fissures, and, most recently, hydrothermal vent fields. Given these targets of importance, the submersible has then been called into action to carefully inspect and sample these sites. While these methods have been effective, they also have been slow and expensive. Where might major improvements be made, and how can new exploration systems be developed when scientific research is anything but a growth industry? Whether we are using manned or unmanned systems, our greatest limitation on cost-effectiveness is not having the freedom to freely move across the ocean floor with unlimited staying power. This is particularly true of manned submersibles; Alvin, operated for the U.S. Navy by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, is the most productive deep submersible in the world and yet her 110 dives a year represent only 600 hours of useful working time, the equivalent of 25 days of continuous operation. The rest of the year is spent going to and from work or back aboard the support shipli//u, recharging/\/wn's batteries and crew. But this problem is not new. One needs only to look at what we call the "Oil Patch" to see the future of deep-water exploration. In the North Sea, private industry is heavily engaged in the extraction of oil and gas from beneath the sea. It is a highly competitive industry, where costs are the major 32 TV CAMERA ROTATING SAMPLE BASKET SPHERE RELEASE A cutaway view of the submersible Alvin. She averages 110 dives a year. concerns. In the early phases, humans played an important underwater role, either as divers or in submersibles. But as time ticked on, it became a race between human eyes, hands, and minds, and the less-expensive remote sensors that simulate these human organs. The humans put up a good battle, but the future is inevitable; unmanned vehicles are cornering the market. What, then, has prevented similarassaults on deep manned submersibles? Several factors, the main one bei ng that the deep sea has yet to become a site of major industrial activity. There are only a few organizations that have the capability of working routinely in this setting. Oneof these is the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, where, after several years of planning, we have embarked on the development of an unmanned dual-vehicle system to be called Argo and Jason. The choice of names comes from Greek mythology: Jason and the Argonauts searched for the Golden Fleece aboard their ship the Argo. Argo will be a towed vehicle equipped with an array of sonar and television camera systems to give scientists on the surface a wide view of the seafloor. It also will provide a garage for Jason, a tethered, self-propelled vehicle with three-dimensional mobility. When/\rgo detects an interesting area of the seafloor, Jason can be deployed to obtain more detailed information. As Jason descends to the bottom to take samples with its mechanical arms, its stereo color-TV "eyes" will transmit high-quality pictures to the surface ship. The overall plan calls for the ability to relay these images via satellite to any point in the world. In this way, optical data from Argo and Jason someday can be transmitted "live" to a whole auditorium of people ashore, to a select group of decision-makers in Washington, or perhaps to a vacationing specialist whose expertise is urgently needed to interpret the data. For the last example, a mobile van could be outfitted with a console like the one on the surface ship, so the specialist could even be tracked down at his favorite fishing hole! And perhaps we will be able to watch artArgo-Jason mission on our home television sets, as it happens. To develop this total system will take some time, with initial emphasis on the construction of Argo. The project recently received a significant boost when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) decided to transfer to Woods Hole a digital deep-tow system that had been under construction by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. This multi-million-dollar unit, when combined with our imaging pod, will form the basic/Argo vehicle. It will be delivered in the spring of 1982, and we hope to have Argo ready for testing by the summer of 1984. While developing the imaging pod, we will conduct extensive tests to familiarize ourselves with the NASA equipment, which up to now has been called the Advanced Ocean Technology Development Platform (AOTDP). The submersible itself, 101/2 feet long, is known as the Fully Instrumented Submersible Housing (FISH). 33 Developed from concepts for future spacecraft, the vehicle contains a sophisticated sonar system and a high-capacity microprocessor for a digital data system. Designed to work at depths up to 6,000 meters, 2, 000 meters deeper than/Wwn's capability, FISH is towed by a coaxial cable that serves as a two-way command and data link as well as a power conduit from the ship to the submersible. An integral part of the AOTDP system is an advanced data-processing, display, and recording facility to be housed on the surface ship. Data from FISH, which can be displayed on a computer console, a color video monitor, or a printout, is annotated and recorded for archival purposes on standard, nine-track magnetic tape. So, one could say that Argo was more than halfway built before construction began here in Woods Hole. But central to the completed vehicle will be its imaging pod. Two years ago, we began testing a new low-light-level video system. Known as a SIT (Silicon-Intensified Target) camera, it can greatly amplify light energy. Applying this technology to a black-and-white television camera, we have attained a sensitivity equivalent to 200,000 ASA. Last year, the SIT camera was used on Alvin. "Flying" over the bottom at an altitude of 15 to 30 meters with a high-energy strobe suspended 50 to 100 meters above the sub, we obtained pictures of the seafloor averaging 2,000 square meters C/2 acre) in area. Another recent development that helped make these large images possible is the frame-storage system. Each time the strobe light flashes, the image on the SITcamera's vidicon tube is read by the frame-storage system, displayed on a television monitor inside/Wwn, and stored on magnetic tape. Later, the tape can be replayed, displaying the series of still pictures on another monitor. Argo will use strobe lights and frame-storage units, too. Because its cameras will cover such a large area (4 acres), a continuous television transmission would requirean exorbitant amount of energy for lighting. Continuous coverage of the seafloor is still possible, of course: the strobe lights will be fired often enough for the images to overlap. Based upon our tests, we are now building, with Navy funds, a camera pod containing six video cameras. Four will be wide-area SIT cameras. Looking forward, to each side, and straight down, they will provide us with a composite picture of an area 100 to 150 meters square. Two focusing, telephoto, video cameras will look down and slightly forward to obtain detailed information about the seafloor terrain or search for a particular object. One of these will be a color camera. Testing of the new pod, on Alvin, is scheduled for next year. The cameras will complement Argo 's forward-, downward-, and side-looking sonars, which will sweep out far beyond camera range to deliver an acoustical picture of 160 acres of seafloor. This advanced sonar system should give us much mo re freedom than we have with our present towed systems, which are restricted in their range by the implacement of transponder navigation networks on the seafloor. To discuss this point properly, however, we need to zoom back to the big picture, the picture traditionally obtained by sonar systems. In the past, oceanographers have used downward-looking, echo-sounding sonar to obtain depth information. They collected a grid of soundings, which they then contoured toconstruct a bathymetric map. The sonars used in these early surveys had a wide beam that spread out as the signal traveled downward. By the time it reached the deep seafloor, the signal struck a broad area, resulting in a reverberating echo. When plotted on paper these echoes revealed a pattern of interlocking hyperbolas. Not only was the signal poor, but the survey normally collected soundings in just a small portion of the total area. When constructing the map, the cartographer had to use his or her imagination to fill the voids. The final map resembled the truth, but at times only in a general way. A major breakthrough in underwater mapping took place in the 1960s, when the Navy developed a revolutionary way of sonar surveying called SASS (Sonar Array Sounding System). Instead of having a single wide signal, they used a sonar that simulated a series of narrow beams going in different directions. Instead of one sounding directly beneath the ship, this sonar produces a profile of the bottom thousands of meters in width, consisting of several well-defined points. These signals are then fed into a sophisticated computer along with information about the ship's speed and direction. The result is a contoured swath of topography very much like a small bathymetric map. By collecting strips of topography next to one another, an entire area can be surveyed and accurately contoured with little or no cartographic imagination. We use Seabeam, a simplified commercial version of SASS that is still superior to the old methods. During our explorations of the Mid-Ocean Ridge with Alvin and with Angus (Acoustically Navigated Geophysical Underwater Survey System — a towed "sled" equipped with lights and a film camera), these Seabeam maps have proved themselves invaluable, providing us with the big picture in which to place our more detailed studies. We hope, with -Argo andyason, to use these sonar maps to speed up our work as well as make it more accurate. Instead of exploring tens of kilometers of seafloor in a month, as with transponders, we hope to explore hundreds. To do this we will use the swath maps to follow the seafloor terrain much I ike a Cruise missile flies over 34 Angus (Acoustically Navigated Geophysical Underwater Survey System) being readied for launch and photo run. System includes strobe lights, pinger for keeping track of unit from aboard ship, temperature sensors, and camera that takes 3,00035-mm frames per lowering. (Photo copyrighted by National Geographic Society) land. We will be able to pinpoint a particular feature even more precisely if the military continues the development of its NAVSTAR satellite navigation system. We hope that more NAVSTAR satellites will be launched and that the system will be made available to the science community by the late 1980s or early 1990s. We also plan to take Seabeam soundings from the surface ship and use them in a digital format to construct three-dimensional computer models of the terrain. These models can be rotated on the viewing screen to provide any vantage point desired. Combining this capability with monitors for the underwater television cameras, the control console aboard the surface ship should give the operator the illusion of being inside Argo or Jason as they explore the seafloor. The software for constructing our three-dimensional computer models will be developed wMeArgo is under construction. At the same time, we will be gathering "road map" data along the summit of the East Pacific Rise near Easter Island, where we hope to use Argo first for scientific purposes. Once a detailed map of the ridge in this area is obtained, we should be ready in 1985 to conduct ourfirsMrgo expedition. Jason, however, will take more time to perfect. The real obstacle we face at this stage of Argo-Jason development is what might be called band-width limitation. Present deep-sea cables used by the scientific community cannot transmit real-time color television pictures, let alone the stereo color TV pictures that/ason will transmit. Argo will initially use a coaxial cable with a diameter of 0.68 inches that can transmit 250,000 bits (digits of binary numbers) per second tothe surface ship. The SIT image we took to test the prototype of Argo's camera pod is 2 million bits, requiring 8 seconds to transmit. Color television transmissions exceed 6 million bits per second. Sitting right on the horizon, however, is the development of fiber-optic cables with transmission capabilities in excess of 100 million bits per second. It is this light on which we are setting our sights; when such cables are available, we want to be ready for them. In the meantime, Jason must be built and tested. To get around the cable problem, we plan to testyason from the very vehicle it will someday replace — Alvin. In fact, we have aleady used Alvin to test a color television camera that is a prototype for one of Jason's two "eyes." Though Alvin has at least 10 and perhaps 15 years of life left in her, we hope thatyason will ultimately eliminate the need for a human presence on the seafloor. MostoM/wn has been designed for the protection of her human occupants. Her pressure sphere requires a lot of flotation material and power to move around. This makes her bulky and heavy, requiring a major surface support system. But the human eyes, hands, and mind are very small. They can fit into a small package, and only one set is needed, particularly when the user of those sensors can be changed quickly. The watch at Jason's control console can change in a matter of seconds. Jason, as presently envisioned, will have a high degree of maneuverability and two manipulator arms. In other words, it will be as human as possible. Becauseyason's close-up investigations will not require as much lighting power as Argo's vast-area scanning cameras, its "eyes" will transmit continuous television coverage to the surface ship. These cameras should be built and tested by the end of 1983. The entire vehicle can be ready for testing by 1985. The ultimate challenge will be to integrate the entire Seabeam, Argo, and yason systems into a single operational reality. Robert D. Ballard is an Associate Scientist in the Department of Ocean Engineering at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. 35 EDITOR'S NOTE: The following account of life aboard the historic sailing research vessel Atlantis was excerpted and edited from a larger work by C. Dana Densmore that includes descriptions of the ship's cruises to the Mediterranean Sea and Indian Ocean. Mr. Densmore served in the capacity of a Research Assistant on these cruises for the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. The A-boat, as she was affectionately known, was launched in 1930 and laid up in 1964. Two years later she was sold to an Argentinian scientific agency. IPI Life in the A-boat by C. Dana Densmore I his article is drawn from detailed cruise log books I kept for 20 years. It is important to remember that the events described occurred when the world was — or seemed to be — a rather more settled place than now; friendlierand simpler. Then, the beaches of Bermuda were not covered with tar balls, the Mediterranean was not a sink of noxious effluents and floating plastic, nor was it thought necessary to analyze for lethal synthetic chemicals in the Indian Ocean. This does not pretend to be a scientific treatise; it is one man's record of life in the A-boat as he saw it. Off Soundings On January 29, 1957, a small research vessel cleared Woods Hole, Massachusetts, for Bermuda, on the first leg of a four-month voyage that would take her four times across the Atlantic. The 125-foot Crawford, built in 1927 as a Coast Guard cutter, was operated by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), a crew of 15, and a scientific party of six. With the second International Geophysical Year (ICY) in the offing, Crawford and I arrived at the Hole almost simultaneously, and it was fitting I should begin my pelagic wanderings in her. We were both undertaking a radical course change. It was the Dutchman who initiated it all; a charming, eccentric, and talented man who represented public relations and edited Oceanus at the Oceanographic. His name was Jan Hahn, and I had known him since 1941 when he was newly come to the United States. A free-lance writer and photographer living on the island of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, he came to know Columbus O'Donnel Iselin, then Director of the laboratory, and was hired by him. Now Jan tried to talk me into applying for a job at the Oceanographic. I told him he was mad; I had gone to war instead of college, and had no background in any of the sciences. He brushed that argument aside. "They need seagoing bodies for the ICY," he said, "and you can learn as you go along. You know your way around a boat, and you won't get seasick." I gave in. Columbus Iselin was a tall, handsome man, a fine sailor, who was the first captain of the Atlantis . The author in 1963. 37 Columbus Iselin, the first captain of the A-boat. (A-boat), and a great gentleman. He took me to lunch, and said afterwards, "Co over to Personnel and tell them you're hired." It was as simple as that. By the time Crawford Cruise 10 began, I had learned the rudiments of some basic equipment and had become acquainted with a number of people in various fields, most of whom were indulgent of my ignoranceand generous with theirtime. In 1956, the Oceanographic was a quarter the size it is now and was housed in two buildings between Eel Pond and the dock. It was very much a family affair, still, despite its wartime and cold-war expansion; oceanography was even then something of a hobby for the enthusiast — preferably with private means - and the age of big electronics was still hull-down over the horizon. There was not a computer in Woods Hole. Before Crawford put her lines on the WHO! dock once more, I had seen a considerable amount of salt water pass alongside, come to terms with the topmost of three pipe berths squeezed into a Stygian crypt that never knew daylight, and seen something of West Africa and Brazil. I had clambered around Green Mountain on Ascension Island and passed four hilarious days on St. Helena. I would never be quite the same again. The ICY of 1957-58 undertook, in part, a monumental hydrographic survey of the Atlantic Ocean between 60 degrees North and 32 degrees South, which eventually comprised more than 700 hydro stations made by three Woods Hole vessels and the British Discovery II, of the National Institute of Oceanography. These were later published as The Atlantic Ocean Atlas by WHOI. Besides the basic temperature, salinity, and oxygen content of each reversing Nansen bottle* sample — as many as 25 on a normal deep station — chlorophyll, phosphorous, and other nutrients were sampled. Echo soundings were constantly spooling off the recorder, and every hour came the inevitable mechanical bathythermograph (BT), which is a two-foot-long brass torpedo containing both pressure- and thermo-sensitive elements. Free-runoff a small winch, like a fisherman's casting reel with 2,000 feet of wire, the BT delivers on a glass slide a trace of temperature against depth to about 200 meters. This operation was frequently cold, usually wet, and on occasion dangerous. No one cared much for taking BTs, but they produced most usef u I data. They are now superseded by the X (expendable) BT, which drops a weighted thermistor probe on the end of a hair-thin wire and records in the lab. Temperatures, and the actual depths at which the bottles trapped their samples, in these dark ages before the electronic salinity- temperature-depth recorder (STD), were derived from ingenious reversing thermometers. These were paired on various bottles, theprofecfed giving the ambient temperature, the unprotected reading progressively higher from the squeeze of pressure. Each thermometer was meticulously calibrated, and a complex calculation involving volume of mercury, glass hardness, and other factors produced sample depths of considerable accuracy. These thermometers cost about $200 apiece, and there might be as many as 20 on a single cast. The parting of a hydro-wire was a grave blow both financially and in terms of ship time lost by steaming to some port for replacement. The hydrographic winch, the 9, 000 meters of wire fleeted onto it, the Nansens, and the reversing thermometers, then, were the essentials of physical oceanography, but so were a sound hull, reliable engines, and precise navigation. Most research ships at that time were hand-me-downs from other service — aging military *Nansen bottles are 1.25-liter brass cylinders used to bring water samples and associated temperature observations from predetermined depths to the surface. Strung along a wire, each bottle is open at both ends until a messenger weight is dropped from the ship to slide down the wire. When the weight hits the first bottle, it causes the bottle to reverse and allows a mechanism to close the plug valves. This process releases another weight that travels on to the next bottle. 38 vessels, tugs, trawlers, yachts. By 1931 , only Atlantis had been designedand built expresslyfor American oceanography. Gulf Stream He (Benjamin Franklin) thought the thermometer could become an important aid to navigation, particularly to ships sailing in or near the Gulf Stream. He convinced Captain Truxtun that this novel idea was a good one, and for many years the Captain went about plunging thermometers into most of the seas of the world. Truxtun of the Constellation Eugene S. Ferguson Johns Hopkins Press, 1956 The spring of 1960 was devoted to a four-ship survey designated "Gulf Stream '60," consisting of Crawford, Chain, the A-boat, and the Coast Guard vessel Evergreen. This intensive survey was headed Wire trouble aboard the Atlantis. (Photo by Jan Hahn) by Fritz Fuglister and was to employ both classical hydrographic work and the recently devised Swallow floats. Rocky Miller was Chief Scientist for the first leg, and Val Worthington would take the last two. April 10. Atlantis departed Woods Hole on the 8th, grey and cold then as now. With stations 20 nautical miles apart, everyone is flat out. BTs, Loran, and met (meteorological) observations hourly, Precision Graphic Recorder (PGR) or echo sounder every 15 minutes, plus sals (conductivity bridge salinometer), O2s, track plots, thermometer corrections — there is hardly time to run music through the new tape deck. At Happy Hour we crossed the western edge of the Gulf Stream; surface water temperature (Tw) jumped from 10.1 degrees Celsius (50.2 degrees Fahrenheit) to 22.6 degrees Celsius (72.7 degrees Fahrenheit). Blue water, smooth sea, and a full moon. 11th. DickColburn,theCaptain, listeningtothe dull roar of Bill Shields bellowing at someone in the engine room: "On this boat, it might be a mutiny or a cribbage game. They both sound alike." Absurd wire angles on station this morning. With a strong breeze and 4-knot surface current quarreling, plus some sort of deep current, the wire did everything but stand straight up while we steamed erratically around it. Eleven- and 12-hour days and barely keeping up. It's fortunate the stations soon stretch to 30, then 60 miles. 13th. On the 60-milers now, with a little breathing space. A fine gallop this morning, rolling deep and easy under jumbo and mizzen stays'l in a mist of spray. Air temperature (Ta) up to 64 degrees. The tape deck works around the clock; Pete Barnes was hangi ng bottles yesterday to 17th century string music from the deck speaker rather to the astonishment of big Louie Copestick, the ex-cop, on the winch. His relief, Pop Wilson, stared stolidly at the meter wheel, accepting gavottes and partitas as another facet of the incomprehensible workings of science. I share the glorious four-to-eight watch with the genial Dave Frantz, a Vineyarder like Conrad Neumann, from West Tisbury. We democratically stagger the evening watch so both make Happy Hour. Th e deep cast now carries a pi nger above the hydro weight; as this closes with the bottom one sees a line (the outgoing pulse) going down on the PGR record and another (the return) coming up. When the two lines almost meet, the weight is just off bottom. This charming gadget does away with feverish calculations of wire angle, drift, and hypothetical deep currents. 16th. A big sea turtle steamed slowly past, hundreds of miles from land, weedy, barnacled, 39 Wind picking up. (Photo by author) and quite unawed by this 142-foot neighbor. Back in the rat race; about four hours to a station, if all goes smoothly, and three hours to the next. Up at 0330, off at 0800, breakfast, bunk. Up by 1300, down a bowl of soup, sals till 1600. Watch to 2000; graph and log sals for an hour, read a few minutes, sleep. There's an awful lot of hanging on mixed with the sleeping. I must confess to finding the A-boat enormously seductive, much as I grouse about this method of making a living. She is a beautiful ship with general harmony in both halves of her being. 1 7th. Easter, so they say. As the glorious four- to-eight (the Blue Ribbon watch) was completing another flawless station, word came that there was a white cloth on the saloon table. I therefore donned jacket and tie for breakfast and was much admired for my elegance and savoir-faire. Fair, warm, shorts weather; heading westward with half-hourly BTs in anticipation of another western edge crossing. At 1800, within 15 minutes the surface Tw fell 20 degrees Fahrenheit and an icy breath set us shivering as the Ta fell like a rock. A strong, fishy smell pervaded the air for several hours and the water changed from purple to a nutrient-rich grey-green with a milky effervescence in the ship's wake. A textbook crossing. The last thirty-mile station tonight, then 12 or 14 twenty-milers. Heroes, gird thy loins! 18th. Warm, roughish, S'ly winds. Busy. At supper, Joe Lambert worked a classic jape on Bill Shields, folding a piece of towel, breading it, and serving it up as a veal cutlet. Bill hacked doggedly at his portion, but had finally to bellowto the messman for a steak knife, with which he again assaulted the "cutlet." His remarks on discovering the fraud were an education in doryman's rhetoric. Speaking of engineers; the drive belt on the tape deck gave out, and we took our problem to the sublime chief, Hans Cook. He came up with a belt that works finest kind — an O-ring from an underwater camera housing that John Graham had thrown away a year ago. Hans had magpied it away for just such a contingency. 20th. By 0430 we were on the edge of the shelf, 50 miles south of Cape Sable, Nova Scotia, in 100 fathoms, with a Canadian frigate babbling away at us by blinker. Yesterday there was a carrier and a destroyer on the horizon, and a school of porpoise in 38-degree water. 40 21st. Last of the 20-milers. A lovely night, flat calm, moon setting, sun rising into solid cloud cover. Ta 40 degrees Fahrenheit. At 0700 the Queen Mary hauled over the horizon going like the devil, her three stacks and superstructure looming huge, her hull lost in a shimmer of mirage. She was clocked by radar at close to 30 knots, and she's almost our age. Crawford and Chain having all sorts of mechanical problems, while we have made do with a slight fire in the radio shack that burned out a receiver. 22nd. In the PM, a great, gray, radar picket ship steamed up, the Protector. She blinked away- Who? Why? Whence? She said she'd been watching us for three days with her bedsprings (radar antenna) and was curious about our dot-and-carry (jagged) progress. As we had been steaming on a cranky wire angle and had just slowly turned two complete circles, she asked if we needed assistance. They wished us "pleasant sailing," Sparky Cook replied courteously, "pleasant picketing," and they sloped off into light rain and fog. The wind picked up, southwest, and, as we crossed the edge again, we were moving slowly astern with both wind and current on the beak. The wind got up around 35 knots without much sea, being with the grain, so to speak, but a hell of a lot of small water flying. After dark, torrential rain and lightning. 24th. Gray, but warm for a change. The heating system gives out forward of the lower lab; aft is dank and chill. The upper lab is always soused in salt water and the doors onto the deck are usually open, so that compartment is Arctic. The hydro-winch brake is being overhauled between stations. The poor thing has been through 46 stations in 15 days, most of them 3 miles deep. Call it 264 miles of wire run out and hauled back. Breakfast menu: plain cheese, Spanish, or chicken-liver omlette. Pinger batteries all used up. 26th. Chain has two hard-working ladies aboard, up to their chins in data (WHOI's first with the exception of Munnsy's celebrated stowaway on Ca/yn*), and has acquired the title of "Hen-Frigate." Dave Frantz and I polished off the last of 54 stations and everyone turned to getting everything analyzed, corrected, plotted, or whatever by the time we get to Bermuda, 30 miles away. A wild flap of concentrated toil, and we steamed through Town Cut with the Black Watch's * Bob Munns first came to WHOI as skipper of the 94-foot ketch Caryn. Around midnight of the day they sailed on one cruise, a young woman appeared from the stowage under the quarters. She was promptly spanked by the chief scientist, and for the duration of the short cruise, occupying Bob's cabin, she washed dishes, stood wheel watches, and collected plankton. pipers wailing the "Fanfare For A Dignified Occasion," and all finished. Even the lab brass was polished. Chain was on the far end of the islands fueling. Crawford due in tomorrow. The town of St. George's smiled in the sun. Well folks, it was a treat to see the goin's-on in the city. With four WHOI ships (including Aries) in Bermuda and perhaps 120 men, St. George's jumped. The White Horse (Station #5927) became Woods Holeterritoryatopeningtimeand remained so until the midnight closing, every man jack talking ships and shop. When it got too thick there, one could weather the blow at the Dinghy Club, a hundred yards from the A-boat. The motor-bike crowd mingled Bermuda booze and Bermuda roads with predictable results - slings, casts, and acres of plowed flesh. Someone on Chain stepped through the forehatch, and a Crawford fell down the long, long steps of the Biology Station after a party and rather resembled something off a Tlingit totem pole. A seaman was fired from Chain; Atlantis fired another, and a messman quit. Another, the crazy kid Fitz who was always seasick, flipped his wig and started for a couple of Chain's problem children with a broken bottle one night in front of the White Horse. Dick Colburn roused out and quietly took it away from him and turned him in to the local cops. As he was C.N. 41 goingoutthe rickety splinter of a dock, hesaid later, "I heard this tramp, tramp, tramp behind me. I looked around, and there were three Grabaneros* with Fitz in the middle. The two black ones were each 40 feet tall; the white one was only 30 feet tall, but he made up for it by being 20 feet wide. I damned near jumped off the dock myself! " Fitz was fired, too. There are big cops on Bermuda, but reasonable ones. They put the arm on the culprit when duly provoked, try him by British law, and turn him over to his ship. No fuss or unpleasantness. There are three reasons 'Mudians rub along so well with WHOI people: mutual liking for the water-borne, an almost unquenchable thirst for Beck's beer, and a natural, innocent use of profanity. May 1. All three ships sailed at 0800 into a great, walloping swell. Val Worthington has upset my life by putting me on the mid-watch — twelve-to-four— with that tall skeptic Tom Lyon,noless.Tom is fine, but the four-to-eight, as is well known, is the only watch for a gentleman, I feel schizoid and disconnected. Dave has gone back to play birdman. 3rd. BTs and more BTs, hunting down the 18-degree-Celsius isotherm in a lens of cold water. Rolling heavily; more mat-burns than sleep. 5th. On the Stream. Warm and pleasant, everything but the main on yesterday. We keep being buzzed by planes and helicopters and sighting naval types — there must be joint exercises out here. Certainly, a grab bag of snoopers. Currents are strong and confused, necessitating tricky steaming on the wire. Last night Tex Swinhart logged 54 engine orders on the twelve-to-four! Launching Swallow floats. Hove to, hydrophones over bowand stern, no winch uproar, just blips on an oscilloscope. John Swallow, an Englishman, developed these floats — just a length of aluminum pipe packed with batteries with a transducer ring around one end. After salinity and temperature data determine density structure, the float is precisely ballasted to sink no lower than X density, at whatever depth is required. It will, therefore, rise or descend with that particular isopycnal** and may be tracked for days, with luck. This one we followed for two hours at around 4,000 meters, then lost it and spent 10 hours casting about with no success. Put over a big surface buoy for Dave Frantz to track from a Navy P2Vflying boat. It answered loud and clear with its call letters when keyed, and has a range of some 200 nautical miles. * "Grabanero" is an A-boat term for a policeman, from the Spanish "carabinero." **An isopycnal is the line connecting points of equal density. With all the air and sea activity in these waters our missing Swallow float was probably depth-charged by some dashing destroyerman. 7th. We're in the Stream, all right, and it's standing straight up and down. Bringing in my 0200 BT, I drove in the plates right by the captain's ear and brought him on deck swearing he was going to sleep with his 12-gauge riot gun and shoot through the deck when the BT-slinger did that. Atlantis' waist was full of water and she was putting both rails under, so he got the jumbo up, reduced speed and fell off 10 degrees, which eased us considerably. Tom Lyon says he'd considered bringing sleeping pi I Is for the rough weather; but, hell, says he, if you ever relaxed, you'd be thrown across the cabin and killed! This first week is a month long. Fine and sunny, with flyingfish, and blowing hard. Hove to all day waiting for a break in the weather. 8th. Under way at 0530, north into the Stream again. Drop a float to 3,000 meters and jog on it; head up, fall off, head up, fall off. This routine picks outall the rough spots, asthe ship's motion changes constantly, and prohibits use of the jumbo as a roll-damper. We heave to and put out hydrophones fore and aft. In the lab, a two-channel 'scope shows by its blips of light whether the float is ahead or astern, while a telephone to the bridge gets ship's headings. After eight or ten fixes, the intersecting lines on the plot pinpoint (it is hoped) the float a mile below. After a time, we fire up and run 15 or 20 minutes to position ourselves over the float. This can go on for up to four days, or two or three floats may be worked simultaneously at different levels, each with a different ping-rate for identification. 10th. A fine, shirtless afternoon. Put the second surface buoy over and received a message from the P2V: "Greetings to the Blue Ribbon watch." Our first drop drifted 200 miles in 41/2 days. 16th. Foul weather, and worsening each day. Blowing hard at midnight, with white walls growling up out of the blackness and swilling on deck. I put out 700 meters more than the depth and steamed the worst of the angle off it, but it would have taken the last fathom on the drum to reach bottom that night, 1 1 hi nk. The pi nger was so far upwind its trace was barely visible, with no sign of bottom. By the thermometers, I still had 470 meters to go. We've spent all this time working an area about 100 miles on a side, centering around 39°N and 65°W. One of the picket ships radios proudly that she had saved one of the surface buoys that was drifting around, and had it on deck! No wonder we couldn't raise it. 18th. Swim call. The shark watch stood by with a Springfield, butonlyan old loggerhead turtle loafed by, bound forthe Cays. Pingingand hydro stations; 42 I 1 \ \ (Photo by fjan Hahn) low on fuel. No showers or laundry — we have the water but a stuck valve keeps it in the tanks. 19th. Rain, lightning, and a northeast wind on last night's station. Took last bearings on Swallow #4 and headed in at 10 knots or better under mizzen and headsails. 21st. Hove to off the lights of St. George's and went in at daybreak. Chain loaned us a Sunfish she carries, which is just the boat for this harbor and fun to sail, able to carry three from our anchorage to the White Horse. That spirited establishment threw a swizzle party for the fleet which was un succes fou, and for the climax the next day was Empire Day. All the vessels in harbor dressed ship; with our four, a Coast Guard weather ship, and two big cruise liners, the place looked like a Sicilian wedding. I wangled command of our skiff R/V Potato Locker, with Bob Munns off the Crawford and Mike Palmieri from Chain, and followed the Bermuda racing dinghies around their course. These are mind-boggling: 16-foot shells with seven-man crews — six of whom bail like hell — no freeboard, and unlimited sail area. When they round the weather mark, most of the crew leap overboard to lighten the hull, leaving the water full of bobbing heads. Half of Bermuda was afloat; there was even a jazz band on the roof of a houseboat, and it was a glorious day. Our new Director — Paul M. Fye — came twinkling down from the Hole to pump hands and survey his fleet in action, of which there was considerable. We went out again on the 25th. 29th. Rough. A sea broke on the port side and poured through a porthole someone had left undogged, flooding Sal (the conductivity bridge salinometer), who buzzed and crackled and threw sparks till the watch got her unplugged. I doubt she'll run again on this cruise, poor dear. Chain, maneuvering on the wire, cut it off with a screw for a loss of 11 bottles and 17 thermometers. |une1. Typical Stream; swollen, sagging clouds, eerie shafts of sunlight, strange color tones, waterspouts, fitful rains. The dazzling crowns of cumulus towers are so high that plumes of ice crystals stream from them, while they boil with fearful forces of lightning, hail, and cyclone. The ocean seethes beneath, and sea and cloud mate in a cobra of whirling water. Some waterspouts seem delicate, alive; others only a funnel dipping into a dark tumult; others thick, straight columns that menace briefly before drawing themselves up to vanish like a jinni. A Bermuda racing dinghy. (Photo by author) Dave Frantz in the rigging. (Photo by author) 44 3rd. Very muggy and uneasy in my fine bunk; wild dreams go on and on like little yellow dogs of fantasy cocking a leg at the fireplugs of reason. Rotten sleeping. Outside my porthole, eyes of luminescence blink and glitter between running flares and bars of lightning. An electrical storm centers on us, with blinding flashes around the horizon, dimmer umbrellas of light overhead and salvoes of thunder. A fine day follows. Working two Swallow floats. 5th. Stillfine. Float-chasingduringtheday when Loran reception is better, hydro stations at night while the pingers look after themselves. Put over a parachute drogue, an aircraft parachute ballasted with sash-weights at the end of 3,000 meters of piano wire. At the surface is a styrofoam buoy carrying an orange flag, a high-intensity light, and a radar target. The point of the exercise is to see if the drogue drifts at the same speed and direction as the Swallow float at the same depth. 9th. Prettyfairweatherstill; notmuch left of this cruise. The Captain wants to be in by noon of the 15th, a day early, and there remain some 700 nautical miles of steaming. (WHOI photo) I am continually astonished at how oblivious the BigThinkers are to the basic needs of ships. They get into ship design and all they can fit their gelid minds around is Movies At Sea or TV In Port or Three Choices At Every Meal To Forestall The National Maritime Union. So Crawford is air-conditioned interment, while Chain more resembles the subbasement of some deteriorated public institution. Nowthe A-boat is cramped, inconvenient, too hot or too cold below, too slow, and has too little endurance. But she also has wooden lockers, drawers, and bunkboards, all nicely varnished; teak companionways; and planked decks. All the quarters are different sizes and shapes. There are portholes and door curtains. The radio operator has a pipe through his bunk to which he has to accommodate his legs. Psychologically these things are both comforting and stimulating; quarters are other than a storage locker for off-duty time. And science here is happily located between its two tools — lab and wheelhouse. 1 5th. Docked on schedule. 45 Emerson Miller. (Photo by Holly Smith Pedlosky) EDITOR'S NOTE: The following article is based on interviews with Emerson Hi Her, master of the R/V Knorr, and is interspersed with edited passages from his voyage reports, which he sends regularly to the administration of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. I his is a tale of one of the least publicized marriages at sea — that between a research vessel and her master. The offspring from this union, in this case between the R/V Knorr and Emerson Hiller, are the marine sciences — geology and geophysics, chemistry, biology, physical oceanography, and ocean engineering. The Knorr is entering her 13th year, still spry, freshly painted, but in midlife. Operated by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), she has traversed 337,761 miles of the world's oceans on scientific expeditions. Hiller, 62, tall, [ 3Ki - ^ Si mi 46 It Marriage at Sea Q Jo o (WHOI photo) 7 V I -z * *•* 47 affable, the grandson of a Nantucket whaling ship captain, has been master of the 245-foot ship since her commission in 1970. He is comfortable with and suited for his job. Graduating from nautical school in 1940, Miller spent six years in the merchant marine and then came ashore, working eight years for the industrial sales division of General Electric. "Too m uch d rivi ng !" he says of that period . So it was back to the sea. After stints on a tanker and a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service research vessel, he took command of the WHOI ship Chain in 1959. He was named the first master of {he Atlantis II in 1963, staying with that ship until the Knorr was built. As with other research vessels, both the Knorr and her master serve as informal ambassadors for the United States in the foreign ports they visit. Sometimes, however, their efforts along these lines can be frustrating. Hiller's own words provide a good example: I paid a visit to the U.S. Embassy in Lima during our second visit. As usual they seemed surprised that we were around — though I had kept them posted on our whereabouts for the past six weeks . . . . I expressed surprise that they were not interested in visiting the ship and having their publicity people make propaganda about our taking the Peruvian scientists out the first leg. Especially since they were aware that the Russians had a ship working out here at the same time. — 3 May 1 978, en route from Callao, Peru, to Honolulu, Hawaii. The largest of WHOI's six vessels, the Knorr was built by the U.S. Navy at a cost of $7 mi I lion and named for Ernest R. Knorr, a 19th century cartographer and hydrographic engineer. The Navy still holds title to the ship, inspecting it periodically and keeping track of its activities. Under an agreement between the Navy and WHOI, 75 percent of the ship's operating time must be devoted to research sponsored by federal government agencies, with an agency paying a share of the operating expenses proportional to the time it uses. In 1982, all of the Knorr's 260 operating days have been scheduled for federally funded projects; the Office of Naval Research will have 41 days, the Department of Energy 17, and the National Science Foundation 202. The Knorr has a beam of 46 feet, a draft of 16 feet, and a cruising speed of 11 knots. Operated by a crew of 24, the ship also can accommodate a scientific staff of 24. Scientists can make use of four laboratories and an observation chamber. There is no ship's wheel in the pilot house because the/Cnorr does not need a rudderto change course. Instead, a few small levers operate the two J. M. Voith cycloidal propellers, commonly called cycloids, which are mounted fore and aft and powered by a single 2,500-horsepower diesel engine. How a Cycloid Worses Each cycloidal propeller blade can rotate about its own axis as it is carried around by the central rotor (above). When the "steering center" (N) is moved in relation to the center (O) of the blade orbit, a thrust (S) perpendicular to the line O-N is produced. For example, when the steering center is shifted to port, the leading edge of each blade is directed outward at the front half of the circle and inward at the rear half. In the front half, water is pulled into the blade orbit, to be thrown away from the circle at the rear half. In this way, thrust force astern is produced, and the ship moves forward. These greatly simplified sketches are intended to illustrate only the basic principles involved. The Knorr has a forward cycloid as well. 48 N \ \ O Each blade of a cycloid can turn on its own axis as it spins around a common track. Once the clutch is in, the blades start churning water like an eggbeater, but the ship will not move until the pilot increases the pitch of the blades. Since the blades can thrust water in any direction, the Knorr can even move sideways. But the main advantage of the cycloids is their ability to hold the ship "on station" during scientific work. The Knorr's cycloids can hold the ship steady on any heading and the automatic pilot can be set to compensate for the current. Jonathan Leiby, the Oceanographic's naval architect, compares cycloidal ships to helicopters, contending their ability to "hover" compensates for their lack of speed or economy on long-distance cruises. The Knorr's crew has had some difficulty with the cycloids; on a North Atlantic cruise they rigged a sail on the bow to make steering easier until the ailing aft cycloid could be repaired in Scotland with parts flown in from Germany. But Leiby blames the breakdowns on design problems rather than on any drawback inherent to cycloids. The Knorr was the first cycloid-powered research ship to be built in the U.S. Her sister ship, the Melville, is operated by Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California. Some German and French research vessels are equipped with cycloids, which were developed in Germany and are used extensively in European tugboats and ferries. "They should never build another research ship without cycloidal propellers to give it the maneuverability we need," Hillersays. Although he would like to see the Knorr's heating and air-conditioning systems improved, he is generally pleased with the way his ship handles. "First of all, she's a small ship in a big ocean," he says. "She rolls heavily in a beam sea. But in bad weather we just slow down and head into it, and she handles very nicely." Once, between New Zealand and Antarctica, Miller had occasion to worry about the high seas. "What they were telling us on the radio reports was nowhere near as bad as the 70-mile-an-hour winds we were having," he recalls. "We had to heave to for a whole day and ride it out. "On the same cruise, ice was another cause for concern : From what I have seen of the ice so far this season, I have no intention of attempting to plow through even the softest pack ice. On our second run south, a couple of weeks ago ... we encountered the icepack . . . and already the edge was breaking up and some pretty large chunks were broken away and drifting north. We eased our way . . . in amongst the loose pack ice and did a CTD (Conductivity/Temperature/Depth) station, but even there some of the ice was rafted up to a foot or 18 inches thick. What looked like soft, mushy ice turned out to be hard and heavy with razor-sharp edges honed by the seas. This ship is not ice-strengthened to any appreciable degree, and I think it would be foolhardy to get in too 49 KNORR deep, with heavy floes upwind, and have one of the many gales sweep across the area. In such conditions, our cycloid blades would be very susceptible to damage. — 6 November 1978, Christchurch, New Zealand. The scientific party rarely remains on board longer than six weeks of a cruise that may last as long as six months. New scientists and their helpers meet the Knorr in port to replace those who are leaving the ship to fly home. Despite differences in background between the crew and the scientific staff, there is little antagonism, Miller says. Whether the scientists are from Woods Hole or some other institution that has been allotted ship time, Miller asks each project leader to give a half-hour talk explaining his or her project. Life aboard ship tends toward the informal: Yesterday we had a visit from . . . people connected with Operation Deepfreeze. . . . Anderson was particularly interested in the operation of the ship — what special features she had for our type of work, etc. Also asked if we had any problems with "sloppy, unkempt" looking scientists! I told him "no problems but plenty sloppy. " — 5 September 1978, Wellington, New Zealand. "I try to run the ship like one big happy family," Miller states. "The only reason we're out there is to cater to any reasonable request of the scientists — but it hasgottobereasonab/e. I kind of act like a mother to everyone on board, and by law I'm responsibleforeveryone's safety. If I'm goingto take the responsibility, I'm going to have the final say." There is bound to be some friction, and Miller is flexible enough to give in sometimes: We docked on schedule at 0800 6 July 7975. We are scheduled to sail tonight at 2300. When we were two days late at sailing time, (the chief scientist) assured me that he'd take the two days out of his sea time between here and Iceland, and between Iceland and Glasgow — not out of the crew's port time. Now he shows up with a new schedule having us sail from Ponta Delgada a day early. How does he get such a proposal through the people back there that are supposed to look out for our interests? We have agreed to sail late tonight — the ninth — but I think someone should put a stop to such maneuvering. We planned to paint the ship's hull here — since we had the time in the original schedule. Now we get cut short. . . . there has been very little time off for most of the crew. We would like some assurance that a new chief scientist fresh from sunny Cape Cod can 't come out here and change the schedule around. — 9 July 1 975, Ponta Delgada, Azores. "I would never make a scientist myself — I don't havethe necessary curiosity," Hillersays. "My extreme and avid interest in the sea goes down about 18 feet. Anything over 18 feet and I know we have enough water to float the ship. But, in spite of myself, I can get excited over some of the weird fishes brought up in the mid-water trawl, and I've been known to queue up for a look through the microscope at some rare specimen from the latest plankton tow." "There has always been a good rapport between scientists and crew on Woods Hole vessels," he continues. "There has to be; we work so closely together. The success of many operations depends almost wholly on the ability of the crew to get a delicate piece of equipment safely over the side and back again in all kinds of weather." Unfortunately, the equipment doesn't always come back: Last night while doing our last core, number 13, by the way, the trawl wire parted on the pull out at around 20,000 pounds tension, leaving some $40,000 worth of gear on the 50 7V?e aft deck of the Knorr being readied for buoy work. (WHOI photo) bottom. Included besides the core weight, pipes, and associated equipment were a camera, strobe light, pinger, and heat-flow recorder. — 5 May 1 978, en route from Callao, Peru, to Honolulu, Hawaii. "That's the hazards of the game," Miller states. "Anything you put in the ocean, there's always a risk of not getting back. We still don't take proper care of the wire (cable), so it rusts. We do not have enough time or manpower to wash it with fresh water every day and then oil it, and some scientists don't like oil on it because it could contaminate the samples they're taking. A lot of it (equipment loss) was due to the inexperience of the scientists and poor design of the equipment they were using. A terrible amount of money goes into the ocean; the ocean is cluttered with instruments out there that they couldn't get back. Fortunately we've gained a lot of experience in the past 20 years and our batting average is much better than it used to be." "Actually it is a very peaceful, organized kind of operation where you don't really have many worries, providing you are properly prepared," Miller says of his job. "The biggest problems we have are human relations problems, but not so much anymore, now that we have more qualified, competent people than we used to." He says the trouble in the past centered on people abusing alcohol or going stir crazy. "We have had people go off their rocker out there, you know. We had one scientist jump overboard once. He had a nervous breakdown because he had been working too intensely. He thought he saw his wife paddling by in a blue canoe. He jumped, but we got him back OK; those things have always turned out all right." Of all the people on a Knorr cruise, Hiller would probably be the last to go stir crazy. His composure not only reassures his passengers but also gets him through stretches of free time that less resourceful people find boring. While others are counting the days to the next port, whiling away their off hours with a conversation, a book from the ship's library, or a game of Ping-Pong, Hi Her is in the ship's woodworking shop, wondering how he can finish all his projects in time for his return to Woods Hole. His output from past cruises includes desks, tables, sailboats, and jewelry boxes. In foreign ports he browses the lumberyards for exotic woods. He also is an avid ham radio operator, and in the evenings may be found discussing the events of the day with an Iowa farmer who is curious about oceanography. The farmer is just one of many operators around the country with whom Hiller checks in on a regular basis. And, whether they are rolling in rough seas off the coast of Iceland or gliding smoothly across the South Pacific, all the WHOI ships "come up" at 6 p.m. Eastern Standard Time for the "hams" aboard to chat together over their radios. Hiller even joins in from his home in Fairhaven, Massachusetts, between cruises. The one thing he does not like about his work is the necessity of being away from home so much. The last three years have provided Hillerwith longer vacations, however, because maintenance requirements and a lack of operating funds have led WHOI to lay up the Knorr for two or three months each winter. His wife Priscilla has accompanied him on several cruises, one of which included a Christmastime stopover in New Zealand: It has rained hard here all week. The only spark of light in the town is the ship's Christmas lights which we rigged in the rain the other day. The local Pub had a party for the crew last night, which, from all reports was very successful. . . . My wife and I attended the Messiah in the Town Hall — 750 choir and fifty-piece orchestra — very impressive. — 14 December 1978, Christchurch, New Zealand. Because the scientists aboard ship often need hourly latitude and longitude readings for their work, Hiller was once kept busy with his sextant from dawn to dusk. "We spent hours just trying to find out where we were," he says. Now he can get the ship's position almost effortlessly every hour or so in any weather — from a satellite. In fact, the readings from the satellite are more accurate than the charts, which were drawn before the space age. Up to 800 miles off the U.S. coast, he can also usually obtain his position with the Knorr's Loran C equipment, which picks up signals transmitted by Coast Guard stations. Other navigational aids include two gyro compasses, which depend only on the centrifugal force of the earth's rotation, and a dual-frequency radar system: X band and S band. While better definition is obtained with the X band, the lower-frequency S band signal is better at penetrating rain and has greater range. "I might not have lasted this long if not for some of the new equipment, "Hiller muses. "Those electronic miracles have changed our whole way of life on the ship." The seagoing life is not to be romanticized, as Hilleristhefirsttoadmit. "If seagoing is still looked on as a romantic profession, it is because people are still reading Melville, Dana, and Slocum," he is fond of saying. And yet, regardless of any changes technology has brought to the profession, there is always that inexplicable attraction of the salt air, the foreign ports, and the unlimited horizon. Ben McKelway is Assistant Editor of Oceanus, published by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. 52 A Modern Research Sailing Ship: SR V Frontier Challenger by George B. Anderson and Raymond H. Richards Figure 7. An early conceptual model of SRV Frontier Chal \enger, developed before preliminary design commenced and used to incorporate in a visual way many of the requirements and ideas unique to a modern vessel dedicated to open-ocean biological research. 53 When considering the great ocean voyages of discovery, most of us are likely to recall the exploits of Dias, Columbus, da Gama, Cabot, and Magellan. Those early expeditions, well-chronicled by stories told and retold for generations, excite our imaginations and impress us with the courage of the early explorers. The great voyages of scientific discovery are perhaps less well known, but no less important. Who could fail to be awed by James Cook's three epic voyages in which he accurately mapped the Pacific, or by Captain Robert Fitzroy and his embarked naturalist — Charles Darwin — on board the/-/MSfieag/eP For oceanographers, however, modern marine science began with the voyage of theHMS Challenger. This momentous expedition, conducted during the years 1872 to 1876 along 68,890 nautical miles of deep sea track, represents the greatest single expeditionary effort to define the nature and dynamics of the world's oceans. It is work that is still referenced and used today. In fact, the Challenger Expedition office, opened in Great Britain following the voyage, is still in existence today — conducting Challenger business and working in cooperation with the British Museum and the scientific community at large. The expedition was unique; it was both a timely and a grandly broad scientific inquiry. The ship, with her six naturalists, moved methodically through one ocean after another, sampling, collecting, analyzing, and cataloging data so that with the eventual publication of the 50-volume Challenger Report, the first comprehensive and essentially valid scientific understanding of the oceans was revealed. Of course, some of Challenger's findings were transitory and have been superseded by subsequent research. A few conclusions were simply wrong (for exam pie, the belief that the ocean basins were unchanged since earlier geologic time), buta remarkable number of their findings remain significant, still stimulating thought. The expedition was intended to be multi-disciplinary, and, to a large extent, it was. Much work that later became fundamental to the studies of physical, chemical, and geological oceanography was accomplished. But the expedition is most frequently honored for the enormous breadth of marine biological work accompli shed during the voyage and in subsequent studies of the specimens and data returned to Britain and Europe. The Challenger Expedition integrated much of the science of its day, giving mankind the first unified evidence that the oceans form a global unity, a world ocean, and that our planet is, in broad perspective, a single, unified biological system. It has now been more than a century since the HMS Challenger returned home. The intervening research years, for the most part, have been well spent. Expeditions from many countries havebeen senttosea, respondingtothestimulusto discover that is part of the Challenger legacy. Significant advances have been made in physical oceanography driven by military requirements to understand the behavior of underwater sound as it relates to naval warfare. Ninety-two years after Challenger, marine geologists and geophysicists launched the Deep Sea Drilling Project (see page 72), a program to map the geological structure of the earth's mantle. That program produced our most complete understanding of many of the earth's geological processes, and our most refined knowledge of continental drift (see Oceanus, Vol. 21, No. 3). In the broad sense, comparable scientific advances have not been made in marine biology. An assessment of the present marine environment is even more vital today. Is it not time therefore to conduct a second large-scale voyage of long duration dedicated to the study of marine life and its ecosystems? Believing this, Sea World, Inc., and Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute in San Diego, California, formed a team in late 1979 to study the feasibility of conducting a modern "Challenger" voyage. In 1980, the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) agreed to fund the feasibility study and also provided an advisory committee of ARCO executives. Soon, the effort became known as the Frontier Challenger Expedition. The expedition is a 7-year program composed of three main phases. The first phase is a 30-month period dedicated to construction, outfitting, and training. The actual sea voyage is the second phase and will require 31/2 years to complete. The third phase is a 1-year period immediately following the voyage to insure that the data and specimens are properly indexed, cataloged, and housed ashore to facilitate the systematic study and publication of the voyage results in the years ahead. Clearly the expedition is an ambitious and expensive undertaking. However, unliketraditional government-sponsored programs, this expedition, dedicated to basic research and freely shared with the world community, is designed for industry participation and sponsorship. And through a unique program of ancillary and subordinate business programs it will be a financially self-liquidating venture. Ship Design Considerations Sailing research ships had an important history of contributions in America. For example, Vema at Columbia University, Atlantis at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and E. W. Scripps at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography served the research community for many years. However, 54 there have been only three sailing ships expressly designed in the United States for ocean research from the keel up. The first was the non-magnetic research vessel Carnegie (1909-1929), which was used for magnetic surveys. Then came the ketch Atlantis (1930), operated by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, followed by the present Antarctic research vessel Hero, a modified trawler with a designed sail set, operated by the National Science Foundation. Design consideration for the SRV Frontier Challenger started with her intended employment — what ocean conditions will she encounter? The track of the Frontier Challenger wi 1 1 take her to every deep ocean, and will test the ship and her crew under virtually every condition of wind and wave. Perhaps her most severe test will be in the Antarctic Convergence Zone (where warm temperate waters meet with cold subantarctic waters) through the austral winter season. Additionally, the ship will be cruising well off normal shipping lanes. Frequently, she will visit ports where shipyard services are minimal. This requires that she be a stout, well-found vessel, capable of effecting many of her own repairs. Above all, she must provide for the safety of her crew and scientists. Another requirement is that the ship be economical to operate. Most American oceanographic ships were designed when diesel fuel was so cheap as to be almost an incidental cost consideration in ship operations. Now with fuel costs running well in excess of a dollar per gallon, such costs are a major operational concern. As the expedition science plan took shape, ship specifications responsive to that plan were developed. The present specifications are the result of considerable debate and revision. Each revision reinforced the view that the Frontier Challenger should be a sailing ship capable of three modes of propulsion — wind, motor, and motor sailing. In comparison to motor vessels, a well-designed sailing research ship offers a number of attractive advantages, most of which are historically proven. These include: • The hull lines are normally finer and offer less resistance, thus saving fuel when the engine alone is used. • Sail propulsion permits major savings in fuel and a longer range for exploration. When winds are too light to maintain desired speed, the ship may be "motor-sailed" with significant savings in fuel. • Sail propulsion provides long periods of "quiet ship operation" wherein the main engines are shut down and only a minimal amount of mechanical noise is radiated through the hull to interfere with underwater passive bioacoustic studies. • Sail propulsion provides a unique steadying effect, which, with the main engines shut down, markedly alters the vibration modes (frequencies) radiating through the hull and decks. It is postulated that this may permit the use of newly refined electron microscopes. • Life on board a sailing ship demands a keen "sea sense and weather eye, " as her principal propulsion system is all external. This significantly aids the mission of biological research; all embarked are more acutely aware of changes in the sights and sounds of their environment. • Operating under sail alone eliminates diesel aerosol contamination and permits collection of aerosol particulates, especially the by-products from the burning of fossil fuels. • Sailing ships appear to attract many species of marine birds, in contrast to motor ships that constantly vent exhaust fumes. The study of marine birds is one of the expedition's scientific objectives. • A more stable and comfortable working and living platform because of the hull form and deeper keel, which resists rolling, and from the steadying effect of the sails. • A safer ship if main engines, single propeller, or rudder fail, as the sails provide both propulsion and general directional control. • Under survival conditions, the sailing ship with storm sails set has superior riding and control characteristics. Having made our commitment to sail and having drawn up ship specifications, we considered three actions tosecurethe propership: conversion of an existing sailing ship, conversion of an existing motorship, and the design and construction of a new auxiliary sailing ship. The tale is too long to tell, and it is beyond the scope of this article to describe the fruitless search for a suitable ship among the many existing vessels awaiting a new charter or owner. Two comments will suffice. Ship brokers tend to enlarge upon the truth concerning the merits of vessels they represent and frequently have never seen. And 55 secondly, ship owners tend to exaggerate more than ship brokers do. However, we considered 147 vessels from 19 different locations worldwide, and none were suitable. Each vessel was evaluated against criteria of size, age, construction, material condition, registry, class, insurability, sailing rig, andsoon; mostweredisqualified by morethanone criterion. The remaining alternative is that the Frontier Challenger be of new design and construction. The following are some arguments in favor of this alternative: • State-of-the-art technology and materials can be utilized to insure that a safe, efficient, cost-effective, insurable, U.S. flag vessel would conduct the expedition. • The ship can be designed as an integrated system, responsive to the various scientific tasks to be accomplished. • New ship design and construction provides an opportunity for an adjunct engineering research program on modern sailing ship performance and technology. A constant displacement ship (such as a research vessel) is the ideal platform to establish the modern data base for continued energy-efficient ship development. • A dedicated marine biological research vessel would eliminate the customary tribulation and inefficiencies of compromising the scientific plan to fit whatever ship and shipboard laboratory space is available. • A new ship provides the maximum investment tax credit and capital asset appreciation while at the same time affording the expedition the maximum opportunity for success. • A new design permits not only the construction of a modern, technologically advanced vessel that is efficient in operation, but one that is a handsome ambassador of the United States — a proud-looking vessel, kind to the eye and heart. Figure 1 shows a model of the Frontier Challenger that was constructed du ri ng the concept design period. It incorporates in a general way many of the basic concepts envisioned by the expedition task team and was influenced by suggestions from outside experts. Note that the sail plan is that of a schooner or schooner ketch. An automated fore-and-aft rig would permit a relatively small deck crew. The Marconi sails keep the center of aerodynamic effort fairly low. The provision for square sails in the form of a forecourse and fore-topsail is a possible option for off-the-wind sailing. The masts are the same size, and the foresail, mainsail, and mizzen are also all the same size (approximately 2,400 square feet). The vessel contains a working stern with a stern ramp for net and dredge-haul operations. Work- boats are necessary for much of the scientific program, and their placement and handling on board is an important consideration. Bridge wings, a bow pulpit, and an aloft observer station are necessary for marine mammal and bird population census work. Figure 2 is a profile view of the same model, but shows the hull area. The model suggests single-screw propulsion for minimum drag when under sail and a hydraulically lowered observation chamber for underwater viewing at slow speeds. The basic hull form was purposely kept nondescript. Not apparent from either picture is the requirementfor ice belt protection fullyaround the waterline of the vessel and berthing for 45 personnel (scientific party, 18; crew, 16; video-tape crew, 5; and cadets, 6). The Preliminary Design Toward the end of the concept design effort, we mailed our ship specifications and an expedition prospectus to 107 naval architect firms, inviting them to compete for our next phase — the preliminary design. The response from the naval architectural community was timely, professional, and usually quite innovative. Raymond H. Richards, a naval Figure 2. A prof He view of the conceptual model of Frontier Challenger. 56 architect and marine engineer, was selected in May of 1981 for the preliminary design. His ship profiles are shown in Figure 3. The outboard profile shows the deck house moved considerably forward from that appearing on the conceptual model, thus enlargingthe workareasaft on the main and 01 decks. The inboard profile and the lines sketch show the rather novel hull treatment for a ship of this size, 221 feet length overall (LOA). Good performance of a wind-driven ship will be achieved best by matching the hydrodynamic performance of the hull to the aerodynamic performance of the sail set. To simply copy 19th century sailing ship design would be to accept an efficiency of performance far below what we have a right to expect for this class of vessel. We believe the fin keel will be most effective. Although a fin keel on a vessel of this size makes the design quite unique, we expect no engineering or structural difficulty in her construction. And in operations, the wide keel shoe will permit the vessel to take the ground kindly or to sit upon her keel i n dry dock with only precautionary blocks and shoring in other hull locations. The hull form also should provide reasonable safety should the ship become beset in ice. Undera compressive ice load, the welded steel hull will be squeezed up to sit atop the ice rather than be crushed inward should that severe a situation ever be encountered. The generous 42-foot beam provides considerable internal volume for laboratories, machinery spaces, and berthing compartments. The single, deeply submerged reverse- controllable pitch propeller is well wetted under all conditions of trim and the propeller is placed well forward of the stern working areas. Its deep placement provides additional screw protection when the ship is working in marginal sea-ice regions. Main machinery propulsion and all electrical service loads will be through a diesel-electric system. Although initially more expensive than conventional power transmission, the system is ideal for generating, operating, space, and power-distribution efficiencies. The large, balanced rudder (with hinge point shrouded) and the installation of bow and stern Omni-Thrusters (trainable water jets as opposed to through-the-hull tunnel thrusters) will help to insure the responsive maneuverability of the vessel in three principal categories: underway in a seaway, hove-to at ocean station with nets or wires over the side, and maneuvering in ports or other restricted waters. Table 1 lists the principal characteristics of Frontier Challenger at this stage of design, and Figure 4 depicts the general layout of the decks. Several considerations should be kept in mind while looking at Figure 4. First, the ship is being designed from the keel up as a dedicated f. Ot/raOASD PKOf/Lt 4, AOIV Ytf\V 2. IHBOiieD PBOF/L£ 4 VAtl7H£6 DttXS 3, GCHfRAi MO&J/JC£-M£+/r*' 5. <*• - 3 - Q -£ PLAU JTUDY NOTE-5 /. PfffMCfPL? Q/MeH3/OtJS : (HUIL F/rnuc*) 22 f'- o 2O9'~ O 1S>O'-O cvee GUAJSD* *\r PVL , MOiOS-D re 43'- 2 3 J> '- O /<* '- A 20'- o O-59 fta fr) 720 TO rzoa 2. suirx (6*1)* 2 A* f t6 ram ONLY ro COHYtY WE C£U£& D£P/tr MLL It// JOlfPfil RAYMOND ' M - PJCWARD:3 HAV4XL ARCHITECT ~ MARINE: RO. BOX 3271 (714) BE-ACH, CALIF-OENUV F-RONTfEP. CU\TE DVC NQ tzev a Figures 3 and 4 continue on following pages. 57 Figure 3. Preliminary design profiles by Raymond H. Richards for SRV Frontier Challenger. ^*t,+**-t ~r ? *- s ~* x ' Jl \Lm v- -f- 3 _^^___ • 1 1 '1 EG j'^v; =^t ir . i JL ,LJ 1 jSy^iV^/J// TOP BRIDGE FOC3LE- DECK Figure 4. Preliminary design general arrangements of SRV Frontier Challenger. TANK TOP3 T^2#5 — ' ° .— - — • ^•o- — -- BATTLESHIP IN PACIFIC AT 15 KNOTS TIME • MONTH IN SERVICE (AFTER DOCKING) 10 12 14 Figure 5. Increase of total resistance (which is essentially frictional plus appendage drag) of ships due to fouling. (After Hoerner, 1965) O O QC HI 5 o Q. LJJ C/) QC O I X CO 10 8 0 AC [] ALBATROS GIILISS ANIA [] ATLANTIS' IS zpv ELIN [] 8 9 10 11 12 13 VESSEL SPEED -KNOTS 14 Figure 6. Estimated catamaran power curves. (After Freide and Goldman, 1967) 60 70o800900100°110 50' emeter (36ft-loa) Catamaran ( 33ft-loa; Figure 7. Polar plot of speed ratio Vs/Vt for a 33- foot catamaran and a 36-foot ballasted monohull. (After Marchaj, 1964) 69 the greatest potential for a significant breakthrough in research vessel performance and the greatest risk of a design with some major deficiency. The structural problem of connecting the hulls and wing deck is I ike connect ing the wings of an aircraft to the fuselage. While this problem is well within the state of the art, it must be carefully considered by a competent structural designer to ensure that the wing deck is neither too heavy nor too weak. Perhaps the greatest pitfall in catamaran design is overweight. This increases the wetted su rface of the vessel ; when carried to the extreme it robs a catamaran of its speed and/or fuel efficiency advantage over the single-hulled vessel. Overweight hulls and excessive superstructure place greater stresses on the connecting structure between the hulls. A second pitfall in catamaran design is building hulls with too little buoyancy fore and aft of the connecting beams and/or too little clearance between the loaded waterline and the underside of the connecting beams. The area fore and aft of the beams should also be left open with no deck. Even on a properly designed vessel, an undesirable state of operation can occur if it has been grossly overloaded. Waves passing between the hulls will slam into the connecting beams and slow the vessel down. A catamaran with sufficient wing clearance and adequate buoyancy forward like Tropic Rover, seen in Figures 2 and 3, will rise over the oncoming waves and almost never slam. In fact, it will be very dry on deck in heavy weather. Another major pitfall is fore-aft symmetry. While sailing catamarans with modest water plane area have practically no synchronous rolling tendency, they can be subject to a very uncomfortable synchronous pitching motion. This same design error can be found in any type of vessel made symmetric fore and aft of its center of pitch. Finally, the waterplane area of a catamaran must be carefully chosen. Minimum waterplane area gives an extremely soft ride, as in the semisubmersible drilling rig, but not enough righting moment to carry a significant sail plan. Modest waterplane area, as seen in Figures 2 and 3 of Tropic Rover, represents the usual choice for sailing catamarans, giving a reasonably soft ride and enough righting moment to safely carry a large sail plane. The large waterplane area used in R/V Warfield gives excessive righting moment and thus a stiff, highly erratic, and uncomfortable ride. Without the extra weight of large engines and fuel tanks, the sailing catamaran can easily be designed for modest waterplane area and thus a comfortable ride. Design Aspects The design I will discuss is offered simply to put the previous concepts in focus, not as a finished idea. It is one practical solution to our ongoing research vessel dilemma. The only novel feature of the design is its large size of 170 feet LOA and maximum beam of 54 feet. No tricks or gimmicks are included; it is strictly within the state of the art of multi hull and sail design (FigureS). While the Japanese have successfully experimented with full-sized, computer-controlled rigid sails, the system I propose is more traditional. A divided rig is used with three 140-foot masts employing three roller-reefed sails with a total area of 5, 500 square feet. Such sailscan be set and furled by hydraulic power in a minute. The 170-foot hull form proposed here could easily carry twice the proposed sail area if oil prices were to rise again steeply. The ship has four deck levels. The top sail- handling deck, containing the bridge, should be paved with solar panels so as to generate electricity and save fuel weight. Docking lines and anchoring gear also are handled on the top deck. The bridge thus has a completely unobstructed view of the Scale 1= 30 L. M. 9/19/81 Figure 8. Proposed layout for a sail-assisted catamaran research vessel. LOA, 170ft.; LWL, 160ft.; hull beam at waterline, 10 ft.; hull beam at middle level, 12 ft.; extreme beam, 54 ft.; draft full load, 9 ft.; full load displacement, 475 LT; light load displacement, 375 LT; wing clearance, 10 ft.; distance between hulls, 30 ft.; mast height, 140 ft. 70 sails, the working deck below, and the well between the hulls, where most gear is lowered. The next deck down is the main deck, with the 2,500-square-foot working deck surrounding and including the open well. A traveling crane like those in steel yards spans the 30-foot opening over the well and working deck so no conflict exists between oceanographic gear and sailing rig. There are 2,500 square feet of lab and galley space located in the cross-beams fore and aft of the working deck. Winches are on the port and starboard side of the working deck under cover. There is room under cover tor one or two 40-foot vans if some of the winches are removed. All gear requiring substantial power is hydraulic, and all winches or vans are removable so the ship can reduce its weight when some gear is not required. The working deck is 10 feet above the waterlineand protected from boarding seas by 8 feet of additional freeboard. The working deck should thus be dry until trough-to-crest wave heights exceed about 25 feet. Under severe storm conditions, small gear should be lowered through breaches in the lab floor. Below the main deck, there are 20 staterooms, 12 feet by 12 feet. Each pair of staterooms shares a head and an entrance trunk from above, which also gives access to the engine rooms on the bottom deck. Double bottoms below the engine rooms hold fuel and water. In orderto provide flexibilityon longcruises, six small diesel-hydraulic power modules are used ratherthan the usual two large direct-drive engines. Each small module of about 200 horsepower is shock-mounted for vibration and noise isolation in its own soundproof container. Only hoses and wires leaveeach propulsion module sothey may be unplugged and removed for replacement or repair. Twin variable-pitch propellers are driven hydraulically. This permits the use of f rom 0 to 1 ,200 horsepower, depending upon the wind and sun input and propulsion, science, and hotel loads. When solar electric generation is not sufficient for electric needs and the vessel is ahead of schedule with strong winds, the hydraulic propulsion motors may be used as pumps. Hydraulic power then can be extracted from the main propellers and used to run the hydraulically driven electric generators or other machinery, such as sail-trimming gear or refrigeration/air conditioning. The divided power plant permits occasional 15- or 20- knot bursts of speed under power alone or the performance of heavy jobs like trawling or drilling. The large total power permits the ship to counteract the large windage expected on a catamaran sailing vessel in severe storms. If the propellers should come out of the water in rough weather, the hydraulic drive will prevent the diesel engines from overspeeding. With twin variable-pitch propellers separated by 50 feet and pulling the SCAT-RV toward the wind or current stern first, no bow thrusters would be needed for station-keeping in strong winds. Navigation systems, such as Loran C, could be used to dynamically position the ship on station, leaving the bridge officer free to operate the winches or perform other duties. Finally, since a SCAT-RV would be considerably faster under favorable sailing conditions, it could make up time lost during weak winds so that it would operate as often ahead of schedule as behind. It also could deploy complex gear in heavy weather, making up station time presently being lost, especially on small coastal research vessels. As some of the worst weather occurs in coastal regions, a SCAT-RV's superior seakeeping would make it a good coastal vessel as well as a blue-water ship with a range of 8,000 to 12,000 nautical miles. John Van Leer is an Associate Professor of Physical Oceanography at the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. Acknowledgments In the preparation of this text, many people were consulted. Special thanks go to Captain Sid Hartshornefor many useful discussions and the loan of his photographs. Valuable suggestions were made by James Gibbons and Captain Berrymen of the Marine Department, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami. Hans Schneider and John Gregory offered many improvements. Steve Edmonds of Formulae Racing Sailboats, Inc., shared information, as did Colin Ratsey of Ratsey and Lapthorn, Inc., Dick Newick of Vineyard Haven, Massachusetts, and Leslie Moore of Nahant, Massachusetts. Arnold Sharp of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Bill Boicourt of the Chesapeake Bay Institute shared operational knowledge of their respective catamarans. Selected References Bascom, W., L. Bergeson, C. Cramer, R. P. Dinsmore, G. Arrhenius, F. MacLear, and J. Mayes. 1981. The Use of Sailing Ships for Oceanography, 32 pp. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Edmonds, S. 1980. Why are catamarans fast?, Multihulls, 6(1). Finney, B. R. 1977. Voyaging canoes and the settlement of Polynesia, Science, 196(4296): 1277-1285. Friede and Goldman. 1967. Design study for 130-foot catamaran oceanographic vessel for the University of Miami, Miami, Fla. Gilbert, John W. and Associates, Inc. 1981. Report to the National Science Foundation on engineering study of LJNOLS ships as submersible support ships. Hartshorne, S. 1982. A complete description of Tropic Rover. (In press, National Fisherman) Hoerner, Sighard F. 1965. Fluid-Dynamic Drag. Published and distributed by author: 2 King Lane, Greenbriar, Brick Town, N.J. 08723. March aj.1 964. SailingTheory and Practice, New York, N.Y.: Dodd, Mead. 71 by M. N. A. Peterson and F. C. MacTernan in oceanography are made famous because of the work accomplished from them. Some very lowly vessels, by standards of design or quality, live on in fame, whereas fine vessels that somehow never achieve a significant scientific purpose are soon forgotten. When a body of oceanographic accomplishment becomes important, the name of thevessel from which it was accomplished becomes attached to the scientific work. The Glomar Challenger is now virtually synonymous with scientific deep-sea drilling. Based on scientific planning coordinated by the joint Oceanographic Institutions for Deep Earth Sampling (JOIDES), the National Science Foundation is carefully evaluating models of future scientific ocean drilling, including the possibility that the Challenger be replaced eventually by the government-owned salvage ship Glomar Explorer, which would be converted for deep-sea drilling. The Explorer, half again as long as the Challenger (618 feet), could handle more than 10.5 kilometers of drill pipe in contrast to the Challenger's 7.6 kilometers, which might be increased to 8. 5 kilometers. Although too large to pass under many bridges or through the Panama Canal, the Explorer could almost surely be modified to operate in higher seas and higher winds and somewhat higher latitudes than the Challenger. In addition, unlike the Challenger, the Explorer is certainly large enough to handle riser pipe and equipment to prevent blowouts, although these capabilities are not currently in planning. The government organizations that would pay the necessary renovation and operating costs have yet to reach a decision on the future of the two ships. There is perhaps no better time to review the Challenger's long and productive career, explaining the evolution and functions of its equipment as we go- A Little History The years immediately preceding Cha//enger's work tested various models of scientific organization. Project Mohole was to have been an attempt to drill one or more holes through the Mohorovicic discontinuity* beneath oceanic crust; it was aborted in the face of organizational, technical, and cost difficulties. Several specific drilling proposals were prepared but never funded. In 1965, JOIDES arranged to drill 15 holes in the Blake Plateau — a large bottom feature off the southeast coast of the United States (seeOceanus, Vol. 21, No. 1).This successful venture undoubtedly encouraged the National Science Foundation (NSF) in itsdecisionto back the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP), formally proposed under the scientific sponsorship of JOIDES in 1966 (Tables 1 and 2). The NSF entered into a contract with the Regents of the University of California for "drilling of sediments and shallow basement rocks in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and adjacent seas and the necessary curatorial core, examination, and distribution of the resulting cores." The activities underthis contract were managed forthe University of California by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. In turn, the university contracted with Global Marine, Inc., for the construction and operation of a drilling vessel specifically designed to *The boundary between the earth's crust and mantle. T ' 72 accomplish the drilling program being planned by JOIDES. The drilling ship was named the Glomar Challenger. Launched in 1967, the Challenger went to work August 11, 1968. Well into the 14th year later, she has recently reoccupied Site 504B, a hole she had drilled two years earlier on the Costa Rica Rift in the eastern equatorial Pacific. The crew has re-entered the borehole 26 times, has deepened it to more than 1 ,000 meters into the igneous rock of the oceanic crust, and has helped run deep instrumental studies. Scientists have found that metamorphism, leading to a recrystallization and alteration of the igneous rock, is occurring. This offers opportunities to study sequences of mineral formation, alteration, and replacement, and to characterize the environment of metamorphism, such as the amount and composition of associated fluids, and temperature and pressure ranges. A key element to the success of the DSDP project has been the translation of scientific aspirations into specific technical programs. The initial step was in the development of the basic drilling and coring system, including the drilling ship. Highlights included: • The first fully automatic dynamically positioned drill ship. A floating laboratory — installed core laboratories. Initial drill string length 22,500 feet. Automatic horizontal pipe racking - 23,000-foot racked capacity with additional stowage in hold. Wireline coring capability. Effective self-sufficiency for at least four months. First commercial use of satellite navigation. Berthing for 74 persons. Hull: 400 feet length overall (LOA) x 65-foot beam x 20-foot, 6-inch draft. (Photo courtesy of Scripps, DSDP) - •— - — — ^ , p£ Table 1. History of Joint Oceanographic Institutions for Deep Earth Sampling (JOIDES). Initial JOIDES group (four charter members) Membership expansion International phase Joint Oceanographic Institutions (JOI), Inc. (U.S. institutions incorporate) JOIDES: A committee structure supported through JOI, Inc. 1964 1968-1975 1 975-Present 1976 1978 • Power generation — 12 Caterpillar D-398 diesel engines — approximately 11,000 installed horsepower. • 1 million-pound drilling tower — 600,000 pounds effective maximum pull. • Initial water depth design 20,000 feet. • Thrusters: 2 bow, 2 stem; tunnel. • Short baseline dynamic positioning - hull-mounted retractable spar hydrophones. Both time-delay and phase-comparison systems. • Bulk storage — suitable to program. Mud and cement 12,300 cubic feet. Sacks 12,000 Liquid Mud 2,480 barrels (bbls.) Fuel16,574bbls. The basic purpose of the DSDP program is to retrieve samples of sediment and rock from the drilled holes. This is accomplished by drill ing a hole about 10 inches in diameter, using a drilling bit with a 21/2-inch hole in its center. We drill the doughnut and save the hole, or core. Each 30-foot core is pulled up to the drilling ship in its plastic-lined steel barrel by means of a steel cable lowered through the drill string after the core has been cut by the drill ing. From the very beginning of the program, the basic coring equipment and bits were a project responsibility; very little deep-sea sediment experience with wireline coring existed. Deep-water sound sources for dynamic positioning also were a project responsibility because much of the expertise in deep-water, high-power transducers resided in Oceanographic institutions and associated naval laboratories and suppliers. One of the hall marks of the Deep Sea Drilling Project has been a flexibility in scheduling drill sites that allows discoveries to be fed back into drilling plans, even into the very next site if a change in understanding warrants such a move. Of course, drilling plans in some areas require stringent safety reviews to guard against oil and gas pollution. The development of coring equipment also has a history of response to scientific discovery. Early drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans provided data on the composition, age, and distribution of sediments. These data were used to construct models of seafloor spreading and to evaluate ocean basin development and relative crustal migration (seeOceanus, Vol.21, No. 3, p. 5). Early core studies demonstrated the existence of major gaps in the oceanic sedimentary record, largely attributable to vigorous bottom circulation. They also provided initial calibration of existing geophysical reflection profiles, with individual sites becoming "benchmarks" for profiles yet to be produced. Beyond this, the cores yielded fossils of small marine organisms that would figure prominently in the relatively new discipline of paleoceanography. Drilling Bits Before Leg 1 ended, it was clear that existing drill bit designs could not penetrate some of the unexpected and well-lithified cherts, orflint, being met. The Challenger was armed primarily with drag Table 2. JOIDES Institutional Membership. Lament- Doherty Geological Observatory, Columbia University Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California Department of Oceanography, University of Washington Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Hawaii Institute of Geophysics, University of Hawaii Oregon State University Texas A&M University University of Rhode Island Academy of Sciences, Soviet Union Bundesanstalt fiir Geowissenschaften and Rohstoffe, West Germany Centre National Pour L'Exploitation des Oceans, France University of Tokyo, Japan National Environmental Research Council, Britain 74 Various drilling bits. At top center is a recent design. Clockwise from there are an early-style roller bit, an experimental roller-cone bit, a diamond-faced bit, two more roller-cone bits, and a drag bit characteristic of the Deep-Sea Drilling Project's early stage. In the center are two center bits, inserted in a bit's coring orifice when a core is not desired. (Photo courtesy of Scripps, DSDP) bits, which are simply a coring bit body with radial curved ridges to churn through generally soft sediments. These ridges were mostly made of either steel or a combination of tungsten carbide and diamonds. The inventory also included a few full diamond-faced bits, which were expensive. An improved bit design program was started. Without suitable penetration capability, the Challenger would have been unable to penetrate not only cherts but also deeper igneous rocks. This coring requirement led to the development of roller bits, which have excellent penetration capabilities. Although the scientific needs of the day called for penetration, the initial price paid, scientifically speaking, was a reduction of core quality in soft sediments. This was because of the gap necessary between the cutting side of the roller and the throat of the bit through which the core had to pass before it was protected inside the core barrel. A compromise design of the roller bit, however, has allowed a single bit to penetrate well through typical oceanic sediments and substantially into the underlying igneous crustal rocks. Re-entry of a bore hole became possible in the early 1970s. The technique utilizes a rotating sonar scanner to seek the location of a steel cone about 16 feet in diameter located on the seafloor. A distance-from-hole indicator on the bridge allows the vessel to bring the lower end of the drill string above the re-entry cone. A similar display on the drilling rig floor allows coordination with drilling as the drill string is inserted into the cone. The main purpose of re-entry is to allow replacement of worn bits. Continued improvement of the equipment has made re-entry routine and now allows casing the hole with strong steel tubes to hold back slumping. Return to sites drilled several years earlier, for deepening or for instrumental study or emplacement (an extension of the use of re-entry) is now one of DSDP's standard capabilities. Improving penetration was not simply a matter of a few brilliant technical strokes. It involved years of trials, minor and major modifications, successes and failures, and serious discussion of what went wrong and right. Heave compensation, a system to isolate the vertical motion of the drillship from the drill string, signficant to improving penetration, unfortunately has not been a fully satisfactory ancillary installation on the Challenger. International Phase of Ocean Drilling — IPOD By 1975, the success of the Deep Sea Drilling Project had attracted participation and financial contributions from five foreign nations. The Challenger thus became the principal tool of what became known as the International Phase of Ocean Drilling, hosting scientists from West Germany, France, Japan, Britain, and the Soviet Union. The international phase of ocean drilling saw the overall program become more flexible. There was more freedom, for example, in choice of ports and scheduling. Drill-string length was contractually increased to 25,000 feet. Berthing rose from 68 to 74 (Table 3). The European scientific interest lay mainly in gaining information concerning the development of passive margins, which form from the rifting and separating of continental masses. Thin by passive margin standards, the sediments off Morocco, for example, or in the Bay of Biscay were thick by Challenger's, drilling standards. Nonetheless, more than a half-dozen sites, and in addition, the maximum penetration yet achieved by Challenger of 1,741 meters (5, 709 feet), were drilled in such areas. These sites have contributed toward understanding sediment accumulation and the amount and rate of subsidence of these thinly sedimented passive margins. Penetration of oceanic crust has presented another set of problems. These problems result from a condition that is also an important discovery. Particularly where young crustal rocks, at least in the upper half-kilometer, are a highly fractured complex of pillow basalts, sheet flows with 75 Dynamic Positioning and Re-entry The Glomar Challenger uses "dynamic positioning" to hold station while drilling. Two thrusters forward and two aft, along with the vessel's two main propellers, are computer-controlled to hold position without anchors in water depths up to 6,000 meters so that drilling and coring can be accomplished. When a drill bit is worn out, the drill string is retracted. The bit is changed and then returned to the same bore hole through a re-entry funnel placed on the ocean floor. High-resolution scanning sonar is used to locate the funnel and to guide the drill string over it. The relative positions of bit and funnel are displayed at the surface on a Drill String Position Indicator Scope. The DSDP developed the re-entry technique because it was stopped short of scientific goals at many bore holes when flint-like rocks dulled the bit and forced early abandonment of drill sites. Operational re-entry was first achieved on Christmas Day, 1970, during Leg 15 in the Caribbean Sea. 76 Table 3. International Phase of Ocean Drilling/Deep Sea Drilling Project: technical achievements after 82 cruises (November 14, 1981). 932 Holes Drilled at 564 Sites 16,801 Cores Recovered METERS 213,412 78,024 1,741 623* 7,044 7,060 RE-ENTRY N. MILES 330,535 FEET 700,204 255,995 5,709 2,044 23,110 23,155 KM. 612,151 Total distance drilled below seafloor. Cores recovered and placed in repositories at Columbia University, Lamont Geological Observatory, Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Deepest penetration beneath the ocean floor: Site 398 on Leg 47 in the Atlantic Ocean. Water depth 3,900 meters or 12,796 feet. Maximum penetration into basaltic crustal layers in any single hole: Site 448A on Leg 59 in the Pacific Ocean. Deepest water worked in thus far: Site 461 A, Leg 60 in the Mariana Trench near Guam. Longest drill string suspended beneath the Glomar Challenger: Site 461 A, Leg 60. Achieved first operational re-entry on December 25, 1970, in 3,062 meters (14,000 feet) of water at Venezuelan Basin in the Caribbean Sea, Site 146, Leg. 15. Re-entry can now be used at any desired site. Number of successful re-entries: 126. Distance traveled by the Glomar Challenger since August 11,1 968, the beginning of Leg 1 in the Gulf of Mexico until the end of leg 82 at Balboa, Panama, November 14, 1981. *Leg 83 more than 1 ,000 meters abundant glass, volcanic breccia, alteration products, and minor sediment layers, an open and highly porous structure results, virtually inviting seawater circulation and interaction with the cooling material. These circumstances produce extremely difficult drilling conditions because of bore hole instability. Until site 504B was reoccupied, 623 meters (2,044 feet) was the maximum penetration in igneous rock achieved by Challenger. It was hoped that once past the difficult surface conditions hole stability would improve. If clean holes can be made in deeper stable rock, as site 504B appears to indicate, then the possibility of much deeper holes in ocean crust seems good. Drilling near the axial zone of spreading centers, where the lavas actively reach the surface of the ocean floor, has never been attempted because of the requirement of enough sediment to stabilize the bit and bottom of the drill string while starting the hole. A very young axial zone is too young to have accumulated substantial sediment, except in unusual locations, such as the Gulf of California. There, the East Pacific Rise spreading center is actuallytearing, orshearingthe continent, but high sedimentation rates have provided sufficient sediment. Thus, drilling there has been successful. Much has been learned about rifting and early passive margin development, or the birth of an ocean. Also in the mid-1970s, the subject of oceanic paleoenvironments began to mature. Careful studies of good surface cores, normally from the top 10 meters of sediment (representing one to several million years), revealed cycles in global climates and oceanic circulation. Deeper core sections, drilled from more consolidated, almost rocky, sediment allowed similar interpretations. Thus there was a quickening of interest in a field that has almost exclusively developed from Challenger sampling. But coring in soft sediments was still a problem. What was needed was a new coring system specifically adapted to the easily disturbed upper 200 to 300 meters of sediments. A development program directed toward improved core quality was undertaken. Hydraulic Piston Coring The coring system used on the Glomar Challenger utilizes a non-rotating wireline retrievable core 77 Racked drill pipe on Challenger. (Photo courtesy of Scripps, DSDP) barrel with an inner barrel fitted with a plastic liner for ease in the handling of the core. This basic wireline coring system was redesigned by adding a piston to which the drill rig pump could provide seawater to pressurize the drill string and thereby provide a hydraulic force that ejects the inner core barrel into the sediment. Named the hydraulic piston corer (HPC), the design is capable of recovering undisturbed cores 4.4 meters in length and 6.35 centimeters in diameter ahead of the drill string. The HPC is lowered and retrieved by wireline through the drill string; thus by repetitive operation in the same hole, high-quality undisturbed cores may be taken in 4.4-meter increments through the soft sediments. The HPC strokes its full length in sediments that can be deformed by squeezing hard with one's fingers; harder sediments do not necessarily inhibit coring, but the HPC does not extend to its full 4.4 meters. Hydraulic piston coring is discontinued when the sediments become too hard to permit the penetration of the core barrel. A second-generation HPC, having the feature of variable length to increase available stroke where appropriate, will improve coring efficiency. This device is presently being outfitted with instrumentation to study the rate at which heat is moving through the sediment blanket from deeper in the earth. Other Special Sampling Devices An extended core barrel, incorporating a cutting shoe that extends beyond the bit, is scheduled to be tested this spring. The shoe is extended beyond the disturbance caused by circulation at the bit, "punching" through softer sediments. However, when harder layers are reached, the extended cutting shoe is retracted and latched so that normal rotary drilling, with circulation, can be continued. A pressure core barrel, designed to isolate and recover cores at their in situ pressure up to 5,000 pounds per square inch, has been designed for wireline retrieval. It has already recovered methane hydrates from deep-sea sediments. These are stable compounds found at the relatively low temperatures and high pressures of the deep sea, but are gaseous at the surface. Study of the chemical characteristics of pore fluids also will benefit from this new core capability. Downhole Measurements Because drilling provides such a small core sample, it is frequently difficult to relate the findings from a drill hole to the regional geology. What is known as a downhole measurements program has been established to extend the base of knowledge out from the drill hole to tie in with regional geophysical surveys. This program includes measuring in situ acoustic wave velocity, density, porosity, temperature, electrical resistivity, and radioactivity along the length of the hole. These measurements give continuity to the study of samples down the hole when recovery is incomplete and give average values for the sediments and rocks surrounding the hole. Also, oblique seismic experiments, usinga geophone down the hole and firing explosives nearby, have led to a better knowledge of local average seismic velocities and their anisotropy. Another type of downhole experiment is presently underway. It includes instruments left in holes after the drilling ship departs. Among them are seismic sensors (to collect earthquake data), strain meters, and temperature and magnetic sensors. These instruments are all limited by battery life and the rate of data relay. 78 Shipboard Scientific Layout Shipboard scientific work has been integrated with other activities on the Challenger. A separate, fully self-contained, three-level core processing and study laboratory is just forward of the aft superstructure, with direct access to the working floor of the drilling tower. All specific core description, processing, and sampling takes place in these laboratories. The storage of cores, samples, and supplies is accomplished with the aid of a dumbwaiter between deck levels. A geophysics laboratory is located near the bridge. The drilling vessel has never been considered a geophysical survey vessel, but monitoring site location with respect to prior geophysical surveys is important for complete scientific interpretation and, in some cases, safety with regard to hydrocarbons. To this end, a seismic reflection profiler, a precision depth recorder, and a towed magnetometer (measuring intensity of the earth's magnetic field) have been available since the start of the program. More recently, a 3.5-kilohertz hull-mounted echosounder has been installed for gathering more detail on surface sediments. Cooperation between scientists and ship and drilling crews has been excellent. The Global Marine crews have shown remarkable stability of employment within the Challenger operation, contributing to the experience and responsiveness factors in the overall formula for success. The layout of the laboratories accommodates a continuous processing and description of the cores, data, and samples. Full cores are received from the rig floor with minimal transport. They are received, cut, and labeled in the upper level. There they are subjected to whole-core studies, such as measurement of sonic velocities, porosity evaluation by gamma ray attenuation, and, then, longitudinally split into two halves, designated "archive" and "working." The archive half is spared any destructive processing or sampling. Visual descriptions, photography, and sampling for both shipboard and scheduled shore-based work also occur in this upper laboratory. The second level is for special purposes, such as photo processing, preparing geologic specimens for microscopic study, and gas chromatography. The third and lowest level is for paleontological, magnetic, and chemical study. Cores are stored in refrigerated space in the hold, where they can be available for re-examination or sampling if necessary. Frozen storage is available for certain samples, such as for organic geochemistry. Cores, samples, and data are transported to repositories in the United States from ports of call. These are then made available to scientists under a policy approved by the National Science Foundation. To date, more than 16,800 cores have been recovered from various ocean sites. The Lesson Learned During the last decade and a half many lessons have been learned. Many techniques that are now common practice in the drilling industry were first developed by the Deep Sea Drilling Project. We have seen advances in instrumentation and data processing, which in turn led to greater scientific understanding. But the one big lesson is how absolutely essential the continuation of deep-sea drilling really is. Whatever the future holds, The Glomar Challenger will be remembered for the quality of work she made possible. M. N. A. Peterson is Director of the Deep Sea Drilling Project at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La folia, California. F. C. MacTernan is Deputy Project Manager. Water gushing from drill string as core is retrieved. (Photo courtesy of Scripps, DSDP) 79 OCEANUS BACK ISSUES Oceanus Sharks -'- Oceanography from Space Oceanus Limited quantities of back issues are available at $4.00 each; a 25% discount is offered on orders of five or more. We accept only prepaid orders. Checks should be made payable to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; checks accompanying foreign orders must be payable in U.S. currency and drawn on a U.S. bank. Address orders to: Oceanus Back Issues, 1172 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02134. 1930 Sharks, Vol. 24:4, Winter 1981/82 -- Shark species are more diverse and less aggressive than the "Jaws" image leads us to believe. Along with several informative articles on shark physiology, this issue discusses aggression, grouping, and the prospects for a new shark repellent. Also included: advice to swimmers, divers, and victims. Oceanography from Space, Vol. 24:3, Fall 1981 — Satellites already provide useful data and are likely to make important future contributions toward our understand- ing of the sea. This issue discusses their use in mapping wind patterns, chlorophyll concentration, sea ice movement, changes in climate, and sea-surface topography. The workings of a typical satellite are explained, as are some commercial applica- tions of this new technology. General Issue, Vol. 24:2, Summer 1981 — A wide variety of subjects is presented here, including the U.S. oceanographic experience in China, ventilation of aquatic plants, seabirds at sea, the origin of petroleum, the Panamanian sea-level canal, oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, and the links between oceanography and prehistoric archaeology. The Oceans as Waste Space?, Vol. 24:1, Spring 1981 — Whether we should use the oceans as a receptacle for waste or not is a question of much concern today. Topics in this issue include radioactive waste and sewage sludge disposal policies, problems of measuring pollutant effects, ocean outfalls, and mercury poisoning, as well as arguments for and against using the oceans for disposal of waste materials. The Coast, Vol. 23:4, Winter 1980/81— Celebrating the Year of the Coast, this issue is dedicated to the more than 80,000 miles of our nation's shorelines. Included are articles on barrier islands (federal policies and hazard mapping), storms and shoreline hazards, off-road vehicles on Cape Cod, the Apalachicola experiment, and coastal resource conservation and management. Senses of the Sea, Vol. 23:3, Fall 1980 — Marine animals have complex sensory systems. Here we learn that lobsters can taste and smell, bacteria can sense their world magnetically, and some fish can sense electrically. We discover that octopuses have a sophisticated sense of equilibrium, and that some insects use the water sur- face to communicate. Underwater vision, hearing, and echolocation are also discussed. General Issue, Vol. 23:2, Summer 1980 — A collection of articles on a range of topics, including: the dynamics of plankton distribution; submarine hydrotnermal ore deposits; legal issues involved in drilling for oil on Georges Bank; and the study of hair-like cilia in marine organisms. A Decade of Big Ocean Science, Vol. 23:1, Spring 1980 — As it has in other major branches of research, big science has become a powerful force in oceanography. The International Decade of Ocean Exploration is the case study. Eight articles examine scientific advances, management problems, political negotiations, and the attitudes of oceanographers toward the team approach. OceanusJ Oceanus Oceanus Oceanus The Illustrated Magazine of Marine Science Published by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution SUBSCRIPTION ORDER FORM Please make checks payable to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Checks accompanying foreign orders must be payable in U.S. currency and drawn on a U.S. bank. (Outside U.S., Possessions, and Canada add $2 per year to domestic rates.) Please enter my subscription to OCEANUS for D one year at $15.00 D payment enclosed. (H two years at $25.00 (we request prepayment) D bill me Please send MY Subscription to: Please send a GIFT Subscription to: Name (please print) Name (please print) Street address Street address City State 3/81 Zip City Donor's Name- Address _ State Zip Oceanus The Illustrated Magazine of Marine Science Published by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution SUBSCRIPTION ORDER FORM Please make checks payable to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Checks accompanying foreign orders must be payable in U.S. currency and drawn on a U.S. bank. (Outside U.S., Possessions, and Canada add $2 per year to domestic rates.) Please enter my subscription to OCEANUS for D one year at $15. 00 D two years at $25. 00 D payment enclosed. (we request prepayment) D bill me Please send MY Subscription to: Please send a GIFT Subscription to: Name (please print) Name (please print) Street address Street address City State Zip 3/81 City Donor's Name- Address State Zip occanus uceanus Oceanus (ISSN 0029-8182) WOODS HOLE OCEANOCRAPHIC INSTITUTION Woods Hole, MA 02543 Postmaster: Please Send Form 3579 to Above Address SECOND-CLASS POSTAGE PAID ATFALMOUTH.MASS., AND ADDITIONAL MAILING POINTS bLAKL 2 PUKCH *