|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 72
4
Implementation of a Network of
Ocean Observatories for Research
Many issues, some of them complex, must be addressed for the suc-
cessful implementation of a seafloor observatory network for research.
The following sections address many of these issues, including program
management, infrastructure and sensor needs, factors affecting construc-
tion and installation, operations and maintenance, data management, and
education and outreach. It is beyond the scope of this report to develop a
comprehensive implementation plan for ocean observatories; instead, the
goal of this chapter is to highlight some of the most important issues to be
addressed in such a plan. The first task of the observatory management
organization described below, should be the development of a detailed
and comprehensive project implementation plan for each of the three
major components of the OOI and the review of these plans by knowl-
edgeable and independent experts.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
Even though the formal start of the OOI is not planned until FY 2006,
a large amount of work must be done during the intervening years in-
cluding detailed (node level) scientific planning, technical development,
and exhaustive testing of critical observatory sub-systems. These activi-
ties will ensure that (1) the risks associated with the construction and
installation of the more advanced observatory systems are minimized, (2)
the initial science experiments at individual nodes are identified so as to
provide an opportunity for an early scientific payoff once the observato-
72
OCR for page 73
/MPLEMENTAT/ON OF A NETWORK OF OCEAN OBSERVATORIES FOR RESEARCH 73
ries are in place, and (3) research scientists, educators, and the public have
ready access to the data generated. For this reason, a management struc-
ture should be established as soon as possible, and in any case well before
the initiation of the OOI.
Goals of the Management Structure
The development of a network of ocean research observatories will
require a large initial investment in excess of $200 million (National Sci-
ence Foundation, 2002~. For this reason alone, the management system
will be under intense scrutiny by Congress, NSF senior management, the
U.S. Inspector General, and the marine science community (which has
concerns about other programs being cut to cover observatory cost over-
runs), as well as international partners, who must satisfy the concerns of
their own funding agencies. Therefore, the first tasks of the management
structure should be to:
· develop a detailed implementation plan for the OOI;
· generate defendable cost estimates;
· put in place oversight mechanisms and fiscal controls to ensure
that implementation tasks are completed on time and within budget;
· establish a scientific and technical advisory structure to obtain com-
munity input; and
· work collaboratively with international partners to seamlessly in-
tegrate complementary international activities.
Design, Construction, and Installation Phase
With respect to scientific planning and observatory installation, the
management structure would oversee the following:
· defining science-based performance goals (based on broad com-
munity input);
· producing an annual program plan and budget;
· overseeing design, development and manufacture of observatory
components and selecting contractors for those tasks;
· selecting contractors for installation of observatory systems;
· providing experienced oversight of contractors;
· managing liability issues;
· facilitating the development and implementation of standards (e.g.,
for user power; communications, and timing interfaces; metadata require-
ments; system, sub-system and component reliability; and information
management and archiving);
OCR for page 74
74
ENABLING OCEAN RESEARCH IN THE 2 lST CENTURY
· facilitating seamless system integration;
· ensuring comparability and inter-calibration of observations made
by the OOI; and
· ensuring that the scientific and technical components of interna-
tional collaborations are coordinated effectively.
Operations Phase
As observatories become operational, the management structure must
take on these additional tasks:
· selecting observatory operators and putting in place appropriate
review procedures;
gets;
tently;
· ensuring that the observatory infrastructure supports the highest
quality science and provides researchers with the best available technol-
ogy; including calibrated sensors and instrumentation, at the lowest cost
consistent with the safe, efficient operation of the facility;
· establishing an appropriate budgetary balance between observa-
tory operations and maintenance and enhancements to observatory infra-
structure; and
· ensuring the program has a strong and innovative education and
outreach program.
· managing the operations, maintenance and administration bud-
· ensuring that access to observatories is dealt with fairly and consis-
The Driving Philosophy
The philosophy of the OOI management structure should be one in
which the day-to-day operation of different components is the responsi-
bility of entities (academic or commercial) with appropriate scientific and
technical expertise. The role of the program management organization
should be one of coordination, oversight, and fiscal and contract manage-
ment. The management structure will need to work with the scientific
community to select, support, and periodically evaluate "community"
experiments; define access requirements; provide technical support for
individual investigator-initiated experiments; facilitate education and out-
reach access to selected data streams and products; develop protocols for
scientists not involved in deploying experiments to access databases and
archives; and negotiate access agreements with other users (such as for-
profit entertainment industries and value-added enterprises). Operating
rules for the observatories will have to take into account the needs of the
OCR for page 75
/MPLEMENTAT/ON OF A NETWORK OF OCEAN OBSERVATORIES FOR RESEARCH 75
scientific community, agencies interested in using or supporting the use
of the facilities; international partners and collaborators, and other users,
including the public.
Proposed Management Model: Roles and Responsibilities
An example of a management structure capable of addressing the
goals and issues summarized above is presented in Figure 4-1. This struc-
ture is modified from a draft management structure developed by the
NSF and the DEOS steering committee and is modeled after the highly
successful management structure of the international ODP.
The ODP management model guided a complex program now in its
fourth decade. It has shown itself to be flexible and capable of evolving in
response to changing circumstances, yet stable enough to keep a multina-
tional program operating year after year. This model, while an excellent
starting point, does not fit the circumstances of the OOI exactly, and so
has been modified to reflect the following important differences:
· While the structure of the ODP often tends toward prescriptive
technical requirements, the OOI will need performance-based require-
ments, as the OOI will consist of many separate observatories using mul-
tiple technologies in pursuit of different objectives. In addition, disparate
parts of the system will be in different stages of development at any given
time.
· For the most part, the ODP utilizes standard technology developed
for the oil exploration industry. The OOI will be utilizing more advanced
technologies adapted specifically for ocean observatories and is likely to
place a much greater emphasis on new technology development. As a
result, the OOI technical advisory and management structure will need
expertise to provide oversight of the operation of technologically sophis-
ticated systems and engineering development projects.
· The NSF is the only agency in the U.S. providing ongoing support
for the ODP. It is likely that the OOI will have a number of agency sup-
porters at the federal (and possibly even state) level, particularly during
the operational phase. Many of these agencies will be interested in sup-
porting only a few observatories or a single observatory type.
· In the ODP, all international operating funds flow through the NSF
and are managed as a single commingled pool. International funding for
the OOI will mostly occur at the individual observatory level, or for a
particular observatory type, and will likely be spent at the national level
as part of a coordinated rather than commingled pool.
· In the ODP, all of the international partners belong to the entire
program. In the OOI, international partners may be interested in partici-
pating only in a subset of the observatory system.
OCR for page 76
76
u)
~ a,
·,.
'O
Z
Q U)
o o
LL!
U) ~
·O Z Z
~ ~ O
TIC An ~
.c ~ Z
O ZO
U) O O
o F ~
Q ~
a) Z
\
it_
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
~ /
a: /
a)0_
~ U) ~ U)
o 8 ,
robs'
~ At\ ~X ~
a:
\
~ \
/
~ U)
~ I .
U) o
CO
Cal
U) ~
o o
/
~ ·~ .
U) o
O: g CO
U)
o o
.O ~
U) o .
CO
C~
U)
o
_
. ............................ ~
· --- U)
....... ~ ~
.... ~ ...
s
o (1)
u)
/ (d
o
, ~
C
1 °
\ ~
~ \
g
au
v)
¢
\
au
o
au
o
5-
bC
o
5-
o
o
o
au
5-
v)
au
bC
au
v)
o
o
5-
OCR for page 77
/MPLEMENTAT/ON OF A NETWORK OF OCEAN OBSERVATORIES FOR RESEARCH 77
The NSF will be the lead funding agency for the OOI. Other agencies
that fund marine research may elect (and should certainly be encouraged)
to support the OOI, but their contributions should be funneled through
the NSF to ensure that the program is well coordinated and efficiently
managed with clear fiscal accountability.
Coordination of the OOI with the IOOS, the COOS, and other na-
tional and international observatory programs will be critical in the areas
of infrastructure development, instrumentation, ship and ROV utiliza-
tion, data management, and technology transfer. The NOPP in its role as
a coordinator for federal agencies, academia, and industry, should be
utilized to facilitate this organization among the different U.S. agencies
supporting observatory research. The NSF will be responsible for devel-
oping appropriate coordination agreements with potential international
partners, perhaps through bilateral Memoranda of Understanding.
The management structure of the OOI must ensure that the project is
in compliance with NSF policies and procedures and other federal regula-
tions. It is critical that a single entity have overall financial and manage-
ment accountability for the program. In the case of the OOI, this could be
the Ocean Research Observatories Program Center (OROPC). The OROPC
would enter into a cooperative agreement with the NSF to manage the
OOI. Ideally, the OROPC should be a community-based organization ac-
countable to the scientific community it serves. It could be either a new
501(c)3 not-for-profit corporation formed specifically for this purpose, or
a division of an existing 501(c)3 corporation with demonstrated expertise
in managing technically complex research facilities. The latter is the pre-
ferred alternative. The OROPC would be advised by a Board of Gover-
nors, whose members would include senior industry leaders with experi-
ence in managing complex marine engineering projects as well as leaders
of scientific institutions with expertise in managing research consortia
responsible for major facilities. In addition to its advisory role, the Board
would be able to provide Congress and senior agency management with
an independent assessment of the OROPC's fiscal and technical manage-
ment performance.
The OROPC's primary responsibility would be coordination and pro-
gram oversight. It would have a comparatively small staff including; a
Director, a Program Engineer, a Data Management Coordinator, an Edu-
cation and Outreach Coordinator, a Public Affairs Officer, a Contract
Manager (or equivalent) to oversee contracting and support annual au-
dits, and other staff as necessary. The Program Director should be com-
petitively selected and should be a person of the highest scientific and
technical caliber with a demonstrated ability to manage an organization
of this scope.
OCR for page 78
78
ENABLING OCEAN RESEARCH IN THE 2 lST CENTURY
The OROPC would be advised by both an Executive Committee com-
prised of scientific and technology leaders, which would focus on policy
issues, and by a Science Committee, which would provide scientific and
technical advice derived from appropriate standing and ad hoc subcom-
mittees channeled through standing Scientific, Technical and Operations
Advisory Committees. In the tradition of the ODE, the OROPC would
disregard advice from these committees only under exceptional circum-
stances and then only with the concurrence of the NSF. The Science
Committee and its subcommittees and panels would consist of a broad,
diverse, and interdisciplinary membership selected on the basis of ex-
cellence and creativity within their respective fields. Members could be
selected from academia, industry, government, and the international com-
munity. International representation on the top four committees (Execu-
tive, Science, and the two Advisory Committees) should be determined
by NSF agreements with international partners.
The actual design, development, manufacture, construction, installa-
tion, and operation of the observatories that compromise the OOI will be
subcontracted by the OROPC to consortia, individual institutions, or pri-
vate companies as appropriate. This decentralized management structure
will promote maximum creativity and the tailoring of the management of
each observatory system to the specific scientific goals and operational
requirements of that particular system. Each operating entity will have
flexibility of implementation (to encourage innovation), but will have to
meet certain performance criteria in such areas as user interfaces, data
management and archiving, access to education and outreach users, and
maintenance and upgrade strategies. This structure will ensure that the
entire system of observatories is more than just the sum of its parts and
that research and educational users of both the facilities and data streams
can move easily from one observatory to another. The OROPC will be
responsible for working with the advisory structure to develop system-
wide performance goals that balance the need for flexibility to encourage
innovation with the desire to maintain maximum system functionality.
International participation could be at the level of the entire research
observatories program, or with specific components of the program and
might range from simple coordination of independently funded and man-
aged efforts to an integrated, jointly funded observatory program. The
management of the OOI will need to be flexible enough to accommodate
these different modes of international participation, as long as the integ-
rity and transparency of the entire system are not put at risk.
In the case of coastal research observatories, it is clear that the uni-
verse of potential state, local, industry, and other federal partners is much
larger than for the open-ocean observatories. The partners will also differ
OCR for page 79
/MPLEMENTAT/ON OF A NETWORK OF OCEAN OBSERVATORIES FOR RESEARCH 79
markedly from region to region and will likely include operational obser-
vatories in some cases. Again, the NSF and the OROPC will have to be
flexible in negotiating cooperative agreements that encourage broad par-
ticipation without endangering the connectivity and synergism of the
entire system. Over time, some observatories that are not part of the ini-
tial OOI may wish to join this research observatory network. The pro-
gram will need to develop a process by which this incorporation can be
undertaken, as well as different options for program participation (e.g.,
some existing programs may only wish to utilize the data management
system while others may wish to become a full partner in the scientific
planning, operation, and maintenance of the observatory network).
DEFINING "INFRASTRUCTURE" FOR OCEAN OBSERVATORIES
As noted earlier in this report, funding for the OOI is being sought
through the NSF's MREFC account. This account was established to pro-
vide funding for major science and engineering infrastructure including
the acquisition of:
state-of-the-art tools that are centralized in nature, integrated systems of
leading-edge instruments, and/or distributed nodes of information that serve as shared-use, networked infrastructure in advancing one or more fields of scientific study. (National Science Foundation, 2003, p. 1). [Note that in the MREFC context, "infrastructure" is used inter-changeably with "tools"].
While the three major components of the OOI described in Chapter 3
of this report clearly satisfy this definition of "infrastructure," there has
been some confusion over what this infrastructure includes. From the
OOI's inception, some of its proponents have argued that use of the
MREFC should focus on acquiring the basic elements of an ocean obser-
vatory system (e.g., cables, moorings, junction boxes, shore stations, and
facilities for data distribution and archiving), not on acquiring the instru-
mentation that would eventually utilize this infrastructure. Implicit in
this approach is the assumption that funding sources other than the
MREFC would provide support for instrument development and acquisi-
tion as well as the deployment and maintenance of these instruments at
various observatory nodes. The mechanism for obtaining this crucial sup-
port would vary from project to project depending on the nature of the
experiment, the sponsoring funding agency, and the role of the instru-
ments in the overall observatory network. This mechanism would likely
involve peer review, thus ensuring that only the most useful and best-
justified instrumentation would be incorporated into the observatory sys-
tem.
OCR for page 80
80
ENABLING OCEAN RESEARCH IN THE 2 lST CENTURY
The rationale usually given for the above approach is that basic infra-
structure funds are difficult to obtain. As a result, as much as possible of
these funds should go toward acquiring basic hardware (e.g., cables,
buoys, moorings and junction boxes). Risks of such an approach include a
possible lack of available funding from other sources to acquire observa-
tory sensors and/or the absence of a full suite of instruments that can
utilize the observatory infrastructure once the construction and installa-
tion phase of the OOI is completed. Others, therefore, have argued that
some sensors and instrumentation should be included as part of the ob-
servatory "infrastructure" even if doing so restricts the availability of
resources for acquiring the cables, moorings, and junction boxes that com-
prise the facility. The difficulty with this alternate approach is determin-
ing which instruments and sensors should be included as part of the basic
observatory infrastructure. The instrument lists developed in various
ocean observatory workshop reports are long and costly. Including all, or
even a significant fraction, of these instruments as part of observatory
infrastructure could significantly reduce the number of observatory nodes
that could be established with the limited funds available through the
MREFC account. Another danger is that incorporating too many instru-
ments into the basic infrastructure could discourage innovative produc-
tion of new and better instruments.
In considering this trade-off, certain analogies with oceanographic
research vessels should be considered. In the case of a research vessel, the
ship itself is the basic infrastructure. Scientists typically bring their own
specialized instruments and install them on the ship for each expedition,
using the ship as a platform for acquiring their data. Most ships, however,
also include a basic suite of instrumentation that is required by most
investigators (e.g., a GPS, an echo sounder, and a conductivity-tempera-
ture-depth [CTD] profiler). By providing this basic instrument suite the
ship operators ensure that every research vessel has a certain minimum
scientific capability. This baseline capability is likely to be even more
important at an ocean observatory, since the value of a node for special-
ized and in some cases shorter-term scientific experiments may be very
dependent on the availability of long time-series data of certain basic
physical, chemical, and biological properties at the site.
The critical question is thus not whether sensors and instruments
should be considered as part of the basic observatory infrastructure (in-
deed they should), but deciding which sensors or instruments should be
part of the basic observatory infrastructure (thus funded through the
MREFC account), and which sensors should be acquired by the scientific
programs utilizing the observatories (thus funded through the Research
& Related Activities account at the NSF or by other agencies supporting
ocean research).
OCR for page 81
/MPLEMENTAT/ON OF A NETWORK OF OCEAN OBSERVATORIES FOR RESEARCH 81
In considering this question it is useful to define three classes of in-
strumentation that may be installed at ocean observatories. The first class
of instruments, "core" instruments, include a basic suite of engineering
and scientific instruments that are essential to the functioning of the ob-
servatory and its usefulness as a platform for basic research. Core instru-
ment needs will vary widely for different classes of observatories and will
depend on the scientific objectives of each node. Such instruments could
include (1) engineering or system management instruments used to de-
termine the system's operational status, and (2) commercial off-the-shelf
(COTS) instruments that make basic physical, chemical, or biological mea-
surements and provide essential scientific context for the observatory's
effective use as a platform for scientific research. Data from core instru-
ments should be available to anyone in real-time, or as soon as is practical,
through the observatory data management system. Furthermore, the core
instruments should be maintained and routinely calibrated to interna-
tionally-agreed upon standards so these data can be integrated with ele-
ments of other observing networks.
A second class of instruments, "community instruments," consists of
specialized scientific instruments critical to the longer-term scientific ob-
jectives of a particular node. These typically will be proven and reliable
('observatory-capable') instruments that provide data of interest to a wide
range of investigators and that need to be in operation over an extended
period of time. Examples might include ocean bottom seismometers, cam-
eras and video systems, mooring line 'crawlers,' or borehole fluid sam-
plers. Data from community instruments also should be freely available
in real-time or as soon as is practical.
The third class of instruments that will be used at most observatories
will be those associated with individual, investigator-initiated experi-
ments. These "investigator owned" instruments may be new or develop-
mental, or may be specific to a particular scientific study or experiment.
Data from such instruments may be proprietary to the investigator for
some specified time period consistent with the data policy of the sponsor-
ing funding agency (e.g., two years for the NSF). Data from these instru-
ments must still be submitted to the ocean observatory data management
system and should be made publicly available after the embargo period
ends.
The core instruments, as defined above, comprise an essential ele-
ment of the basic observatory infrastructure that should be supported
through the MREFC even if that means a reduction in the overall size of
the observatory facility. Shore-based facilities for data distribution and
archiving are also part of the basic observatory infrastructure that should
be supported through the OOI. In some cases a community instrument
might also be important enough to the scientific rationale of a particular
OCR for page 82
82
ENABLING OCEAN RESEARCH IN THE 2 lST CENTURY
observatory that it should also be considered as part of the basic infra-
structure. In most cases, however, funding for those science programs
(e.g., CLIVAR, Ridge 2000, GLOBEC) or groups of investigators using the
facility would seek funding for "community instruments" from sources
other than the NSF's MREFC account via peer-reviewed proposals sub-
mitted to the NSF or other agencies supporting ocean research. Since core
instrument needs will vary widely from observatory to observatory, it is
inappropriate for this report to define a list of core instruments or to
specify a certain percentage of MREFC funds that should be utilized for
core instrument acquisition. The proponents of each observatory system
will be in the best position to judge the trade-off between basic observa-
tory hardware (i.e., the number of nodes) and the basic sensor require-
ments for that hardware given the finite resources available through the
MREFC. The expectation, however, is that every observatory will require
some core instrumentation.
Even if core instruments are included as part of the basic observatory
infrastructure funded through the MREFC, they will constitute only a
small portion of the longer-term instrument needs for ocean observato-
ries. The total investment in sensors and instrumentation for observatory
systems acquired through the OOI could, over time, approach the cost of
the observatory infrastructure itself. The research community has ex-
pressed concern that the funding to acquire these instruments may not
materialize and that, as a consequence, access to the observatory infra-
structure will be delayed and the full scientific potential of ocean obser-
vatories will not be realized. The long-term scientific success of the re-
search-driven observatory network will depend at least in part on the
development of a program within the NSF's Ocean Sciences Division
which will select peer-reviewed proposals for funding of new observa-
tory sensors and instrumentation. Given the significant lead-time involved
in constructing and acquiring new instrumentation, the NSF is encour-
aged to establish an "Ocean Observatory Instrumentation Program" well
in advance of when these observatories become operational. As instru-
mentation needs at observatories will evolve continuously (see the fol-
lowing discussion), such a program will be needed as long as ocean ob-
servatories remain in operation. Other agencies with an interest in ocean
research may also support acquisition of instrumentation for ocean obser-
vatories and the NSF is encouraged to explore these options, perhaps
through an interagency mechanism such as the NOPP program.
SENSORS AND INSTRUMENTATION NEEDS
Making integrated physical, chemical, and biological observations in
the oceans presents challenges quite different from those faced by atmo-
OCR for page 127
/MPLEMENTAT/ON OF A NETWORK OF OCEAN OBSERVATORIES FOR RESEARCH 127
Science Foundation, 2002~. This section discusses scientific planning, en-
gineering development, and system testing needs over the next two to
three years; describes the factors that might affect the phasing of imple-
mentation of each of the three main OOI components; and recommends
an implementation strategy for the five-year OOI-MREFC program.
It was beyond the scope of this study to develop a detailed cost analy-
sis for the construction and installation of each OOI component (coastal,
regional, and global). Planning for each of these elements has developed
largely independently of the others, and important decisions on the exact
proposals have yet to be made. Although precise cost estimates are thus
impossible to make at the present time, the development of a detailed and
comprehensive project implementation plan and cost analysis for each of
the three major components of the OOI, and the review of these plans by
knowledgeable and independent experts is needed as soon as possible.
These plans should be completed by the end of 2004 and reviewed in
early 2005. If the total cost of the infrastructure envisioned for the OOI
exceeds the resources available through the MREFC, the scope of each
proposed component, as well as each component's relative priority will
need reassessing.
Pre-lnstallation Planning and Development Needs
A program as large and complex as the OOI requires an extensive
planning and development effort prior to installation of the MREFC-
funded infrastructure. These activities have been under way for some
time (Chapter 3) but much remains to be accomplished; planning and
development work will need to be accelerated between now and the
beginning of construction and installation. Significant levels of additional
funding (several million dollars over the next two to three years) will be
required to support these activities.
An essential first step for pre-installation planning is the establish-
ment of the OOI Program Office, described in the first section of this
chapter, to oversee and coordinate these planning activities. It is recom-
mended that this office be established by the end of 2003. The Program
Office's first task should be the development of a detailed and compre-
hensive project implementation plan, as outlined above.
The Program Office also needs to oversee scientific and technical plan-
ning to better define locations, scientific objectives, and core instrument
and infrastructure requirements of specific observatory nodes and obser-
vatory systems. Scientific planning will allow individuals, groups, and
programs to compete through a peer-reviewed mechanism for research
time, bandwidth, and power usage on observatory infrastructure. This
OCR for page 128
128
ENABLING OCEAN RESEARCH IN THE 2 lST CENTURY
process should begin immediately and should involve the broadest pos-
sible cross section of the ocean sciences community. The process may
include planning workshops, solicitation, and review of proposals from
individuals and community groups, and the establishment of science and
technical advisory committees to the Program Office.
A third major task of the OOI Program Office should be the develop-
ment of both a comprehensive data management plan for the OOI and a
strategy for an innovative and effective EPO program.
In addition to scientific and program planning, development and test-
ing of the more advanced observatory infrastructure components envi-
sioned for the OOI is required prior to the beginning of the MREFC (these
needs have been outlined in some detail in Chapter 3~. Funding has been
secured for prototyping and testing of some critical sub-systems, and for
the establishment of testbeds for cabled and moored buoy observatories
(e.g., the Acoustically-linked Ocean Observing System [ALOOS], MARS,
MOOS). However, additional funding will be required to complete this
development and testing work prior to the construction and installation
phase of the MREFC. Of particular importance is testing of the power and
communications sub-systems for the multi-node, looped-network topol-
ogy envisioned for the NEPTUNE-type, regional-scale cabled observa-
tory, as well as the design, prototyping, and testing of critical sub-systems
for the high-bandwidth, cable-linked moored buoys (i.e., EOM cable, C-
Band antenna, and diesel power generation). The technical feasibility and
cost-effectiveness of utilizing retired telecommunications cables for some
global network observatory sites should also be thoroughly evaluated
during this period.
Ocean Observatories Initiative Implementation Strategy
The proposed OOI MRFEC funding profile shown in Figure 1-5 will
increase from $27 million dollars in FY 2006 to approximately $80 million
dollars in FY 2008 and will decrease to approximately $43 or $44 million
dollars in FY 2009 and FY 2010. While it is not clear how much flexibility
there may be in changing these proposed year-to-year expenditures, the
DEOS Steering Committee or, once it is established, the OOI Program
Office should review this funding profile and determine if it is optimal for
the OOI's specific requirements.
In considering possible phasing of construction and installation of the
ocean observatory infrastructure over this five-year period, a number of
different criteria have been considered including scientific and technical
readiness, risk, cost considerations, timely payoff, and leveraging oppor-
tunities. Table 4-3 summarizes these criteria for each of the three OOI
OCR for page 129
/MPLEMENTAT/ON OF A NETWORK OF OCEAN OBSERVATORIES FOR RESEARCH 129
components. The following sections discuss, these criteria and offer rec-
ommended phasing strategies. As there is insufficient information avail-
able to develop a five-year construction and installation budget, tasks
have been assigned to one of three different phases (early, middle, late)
for the five-year OOI MREFC program.
Global Observatory Network
Scientific planning for the global observatory network is mature and
nas proceeded to the level of identifying specific sites and multidisci-
plinary instrumentation requirements for each node (Chapter 3; Figure 3-
1~. Site selection is being coordinated at the international level and there
are significant opportunities to leverage the investment the NSF makes
with additional nodes funded by other nations (Appendix E). The low-
bandwidth, oceanographic mooring design proposed for many low- and
mid-latitude sites is already in use for oceanographic and meteorological
applications and additional buoys can be built and deployed as soon as
funds are available. Priority has been given to sites that fill gaps in the
present time-series observatory system and that meet interdisciplinary
research needs (DEOS Moored Buoy Observatory Working Group, 2003~.
The opportunity for early scientific payoff for these sites is high, espe-
cially for climate and oceanographic research applications.
The high-latitude and high-bandwidth buoy systems proposed as part
of the global program will, however, require additional prototyping and
testing before large-scale construction and deployment of these systems
can begin (Chapter 3~. The proposed high-latitude sites are characterized
by severe weather, including high surface winds and seas, which will
require new engineering approaches for buoy and mooring design to
ensure survivability. The high-bandwidth buoy systems that have been
proposed are also new, and will require validation and testing of critical
sub-systems (e.g., EOM cable design and terminations, C-Band antenna
performance, and reliability of unattended diesel generators), preferably
by initial deployment of a prototype system at a low or mid-latitude
location.
These considerations suggest phasing for installation of global obser-
vatories (Box 4-2), assuming that the OOI is divided into three phases of
approximately one and a half to two years each.
Regiona/-Sca/e Observatories
Through the efforts of the U.S. and Canadian NEPTUNE groups, sci-
entific and technical planning for a plate-scale cabled observatory in the
OCR for page 130
130
ENABLING OCEAN RESEARCH IN THE 2 lST CENTURY
TABLE 4-3 Phasing Criteria for Seafloor Observatory Implementation
Global Network
Regional-
Scientific Readiness Scientific objectives well-defined; scientific planning Scientific
very mature with ~20 potential multidisciplinary scientific
observatory sites identified. Good coordination at the system or
international level. definition
objective'
requirem
Technological Readiness Low-to-mid latitude, low-bandwidth acoustically- Major pro
linked moorings feasible now; cable-linked and high- power ar
latitude moorings need prototyping and testing of design d.
critical sub-systems (EOM cable, C-Band antenna, Two testl
power generation) before large scale deployment; for valid;
re-use of telecom cables needs feasibility study. Need ful
a multi-e
Risk Low for low-to-mid latitude, low bandwidth systems; Moderate
moderate for low-to-mid latitude high-bandwidth common
systems; high for high-latitude systems; should because ~
consider cable re-use to minimize risk at some high node, me
latitude sites. risk can l
designs ~
installation
Financial Considerations Unit cost is about $1 million dollars to several Desirable
million dollars/node; total costs scalable by number installati'
of moorings acquired. advantag
market cat
will inch
Timely Payoff Depends on science, but opportunities for early Given sit
payoff are high, particularly in remote regions. for route
likely to .
five-year
Leveraging Opportunities High, with international collaboration with other High, wi
nations (Japan, United Kingdom, Europe). and poss
Northeast Pacific is well advanced (NEPTUNE Phase I Partners, 2000~. As
described in Chapter 3, however, a large, plate-scale cabled observatory
like NEPTUNE presents some major engineering challenges. The progress
in developing and testing new technology to meet these engineering re-
quirements and the long lead times required for many of the tasks in-
OCR for page 131
/MPLEMENTAT/ON OFA NETWORK OF OCEAN OBSERVATORIES FOR RESEARCH 131
tation
Regional-Scale
Coastal
Planning
nary
on at the
cally-
nd high-
ing of
enna,
Dent;
dy.
systems;
width
1ld
he high
al
number
rly
as.
other
Scientific objectives well-defined;
scientific planning for NEPTUNE-like
system mature, but need better
definition of location, scientific
objectives and infrastructure
requirements of individual nodes.
Major progress made in the design of
power and telemetry systems but final
design decisions have not been made.
Two testbeds are under development
for validation of major sub-systems.
Need full system integration test using
a multi-node, loop network topology.
Moderate-to-high because power and
communication systems are new and
because of the complexity of multiple-
node, multiple-loop network topology;
risk can be minimized by validating
designs using testbeds and a phased
installation.
Desirable to acquire cable and sign
installation contracts early to take
advantage of present depressed
market conditions; phased installation
will increase total costs.
Given significant lead time required
for route surveys and permitting, not
likely to be operational until late in
five-year period.
High, with collaboration with Canada
and possibly other nations.
Scientific planning still in early stages;
relative importance in OOI of mobile
Pioneer Arrays, cabled observatories, and
long time-series sites requires more
community input. Relationship to IOOS
coastal sites needs definition.
Pioneer Arrays and Codar use standard
"off-the-shelf" technology; use of simple
cabled systems in coastal environment
demonstrated; more complex cabled
observatories with mesh topology or
multiple nodes need development; issues
with damage from fishing, corrosion,
vandalism need to be addressed.
Risk for coastal radar systems very low; risk
for mooring arrays low-to-moderate; risk
for cables low.
Requires further definition of components
of coastal OOI. Does not appear that
phasing will have a major impact on costs.
Early payoff possible with operation of first
Pioneer Array or augmentation of existing
coastal observatories.
High, through leveraging of funding from
state and other federal agencies, IOOS.
valved in installing a NEPTUNE-like cabled observatory will place strong
constraints on the funding timeline of the OOI MREFC.
Power and communications systems for a system like NEPTUNE will
be significantly different than systems used with conventional submarine
telecommunications cables. The multi-node, multiple-loop network
OCR for page 132
132
ENABLING OCEAN RESEARCH IN THE 2 lST CENTURY
topology of NEPTUNE is also unprecedented for a submarine cable sys-
tem. These engineering and technical issues are being addressed on a
number of fronts. Engineering design studies have been completed or are
under way for both the power and telemetry sub-systems and two test-
beds (VENUS and MARS) are under development for validation of these
system designs. As presently funded, however, MARS will provide only a
partial test of the key power and data telemetry sub-systems since its
relatively short, single-cable, single-node design will not test the opera-
tion of these sub-systems with the more complex multi-node, looped net-
work topology of a NEPTUNE-like observatory. A full system integration
test of all major sub-systems (power, telemetry, timing, and command
and control) with a multi-node, looped network topology is recommended
before the full deployment of such a network. This test could be accom-
plished by augmenting the MARS testbed with an on-land, full-configu-
ration test or with a phased deployment of the full network by initially
OCR for page 133
/MPLEMENTAT/ON OF A NETWORK OF OCEAN OBSERVATORIES FOR RESEARCH 133
installing only one of the three planned loops. While a phased two-stage
installation of a looped network will cost more than a single installation,
the reduction in risk brought about by this approach may be worth any
additional cost.
Important logistical considerations will also affect the timing of in-
stallation of a NEPTUNE-like system. Obtaining the necessary permits,
especially near cable landfalls, can take up to two years. Cable routes
need to be surveyed prior to installation in order to assess bottom charac-
teristics and topography for hazards. Time is required to fabricate and
test the cable. In addition, nodes must be designed, ordered, manufac-
tured, and tested, both individually and in their final configuration. Given
the present depressed state of the telecommunications industry, signifi-
cant cost savings may be achieved by purchasing cable and contracting
for installation sooner rather than later; the NEPTUNE system may not
use standard submarine optical amplifiers or cable power systems, how-
ever, so non-standard cables will likely be needed. The operation of the
major sub-systems (power, telemetry, and timing), and the operation of
the system as a whole, need to be simulated and validated through exten-
sive computer modeling and physical testing throughout the construction
and installation phase.
These considerations suggest the phasing for installation of a NEP-
TUNE-like, regional-scale cabled observatory over the five-year MREFC
(Box 4-3~.
Coastal Observatories
As described in Chapter 3, scientific planning for coastal observato-
ries in the context of the OOI began in 2002, but there is still no commu-
nity consensus on the appropriate balance between spatial mapping and
high-resolution time-series. Additionally, it is essential to establish a num-
ber of long-term time-series sites in U.S. coastal waters, including the
Great Lakes, using cables and buoys. There is, however, no agreement on
whether this need can be met by the moorings that Ocean.US is planning
to deploy as part of the coastal IOOS, or whether the OOI will require
moorings specifically dedicated to coastal ocean research. The coastal
community will need to develop a consensus on the appropriate balance
of Pioneer Arrays, cabled observatories, and long-term measurement sites
required to meet future coastal research needs. This consensus can be
achieved by bringing together the diverse coastal community, including
representatives from Ocean.US. Discussions should focus on implemen-
tation with pragmatic consideration given to the appropriate mix of re-
locatable and permanent observing systems. This planning effort should
OCR for page 134
134
ENABLING OCEAN RESEARCH IN THE 2 lST CENTURY
identify the number and location of long-term time-series sites and the
instrument requirements at these sites.
While additional scientific planning is needed, the available technolo-
gies for coastal observatories are relatively mature and installation of
these systems is feasible within the five-year MREFC time frame. How-
ever, some important technical challenges exist. Biofouling and corrosion
remain significant problems for long-term observations in the coastal
ocean and a major effort to mitigate their affects is required. Coastal moor-
ings have not been outfitted with bistatic radar arrays and they rarely
integrate the new generation big-optical sensors required for biogeo-
chemically relevant measurements. For the coastal radar arrays, the de-
OCR for page 135
/MPLEMENTAT/ON OF A NETWORK OF OCEAN OBSERVATORIES FOR RESEARCH 135
velopment of multi-static arrays will require further development of syn-
chronous timing technology that allows different radars to use the same
radio frequency. Coastal cables are largely limited by a lack of robust
multi-sensor auto-profiling of the water column.
Until a community consensus is reached on the infrastructure re-
quired for coastal research observatories, any implementation plan will,
of necessity, be rather notional. The following plan (Box 4-4) assumes
construction of two Pioneer Arrays, the establishment of a coastal instru-
ment testbed, a new coastal cabled observatory, and the augmentation of
the IOOS national network of long-term coastal time-series moorings with
additional instrumentation to make them suitable for interdisciplinary
coastal research.
OCR for page 136
136
ENABLING OCEAN RESEARCH IN THE 2 lST CENTURY
OCR for page 137
/MPLEMENTAT/ON OF A NETWORK OF OCEAN OBSERVATORIES FOR RESEARCH 137
Data Management System Implementation
Establishment of the OOI-DMS will need to be phased and coordi-
nated with observatory installations (Box 4-5~. Even though the operators
of each observatory system will manage data functions individually, co-
ordination at the program level will be necessary to guarantee compat-
ibility across observatory types. A Data Management advisory committee
should be established by the OOI Program Office to oversee the imple-
mentation strategy outlined in Box 4-5.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
ocean research
