Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 15:18:26 EST
From: scheirer@emma.geo.brown.EDU (Daniel Scheirer)
To: shipsked@ucsd.edu
Subject: u/w geophysics subcontract for MELT
Cc: scheirer@emma.geo.brown.EDU
Dear Rose,
Don Forsyth and I have contacted Dave Epp about adding underway
geophysical data collection to the up-coming MELT deployment
leg on Melville (~Oct., 1995). Epp has verbally agreed to the
following plan, and we'd like to have official SIO documentation
to include as a new subcontract to Brown's budget. (Are you the
person to draft these things up? Don thought so.) The costs
are based on the 1995 values in the costs of services document
you sent me in November. Here's the breakdown:
SIO Subcontract
12 days SeaBeam2000 Basic Rate
@ $2361/day 28,332
28 days SeaBeam2000 Ancillary @$250 7,000
40 days Gravity @$265/day
(20 days max charge) 5,300
TOTAL SIO 40,632
Let me know how this looks. We're presuming that there is no explicit
charge for the navigation and magnetics data. If you could send
the estimate for this to us ASAP, we'd appreciate it.
Also, have you heard from Epp re. the scheduling of the Johnson-SEIR
vs. Lonsdale legs in Austral Summer '95-'96?
Thanks very much,
Dan
...................................................................
Dan Scheirer Email: scheirer@emma.geo.brown.edu
Department of Geological Sciences Office: 401-863-7573
Box 1846 (<-- important!!) Lab: 401-863-1701
Brown University Fax: 401-863-2058
Providence, RI 02912
******************************
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 94 11:03:21 EDT
From: alan@faraday.whoi.edu (Alan D. Chave)
To: rdufour@ucsd.edu, rknox@ucsd.edu
Subject: melt cruise schedule
Cc: Donald_Forsyth@brown.edu
Rose and Bob:
I heard last week that the first leg of MELT (which is
being coordinated by Don Forsyth) is now scheduled on the
Melville for early September to late October 95. I had earlier
seen a ship schedule which had it running from mid-October to
late November. I also understand that the plan is to use
Melville for the second leg which involves deployment of
electromagnetic instruments, and for which I am supposed to
be co-chief with Mike Purdy. This leg is supposed to happen
about 7 months after the seismic deployment, and hence moving
this leg up will impact on the 1996 leg 2 schedule.
I would appreciate being kept informed about this because our
instrument construction and preparation efforts have to be
controlled in part by the ship schedule. We are in the midst of
building 32 new instruments for MELT. This is a major effort,
and one which can be accelerated very little. I was quite
comfortable with the Oct-Nov seismic deployment (which translates
into a June 96 leg 2), but am much less happy with the earlier
schedule (which translates into a May 96 leg 2, I think). This
is exacerbated by the need to ship a month earlier if a foreign
port is used, as I expect it will be. I think we can be ready
for this, but am not certain. If the second leg is moved any
earlier, I am sure we will not be able to meet it. This problem
is also impacted by the fact that we will lose the services of
helmut moeller for 1-2 months next summer, when he undergoes hip
replacement surgery. Thus, I have very little flexibility in
scheule.
***********************************
From: Donald_Forsyth@brown.edu
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 94 09:00:24 -0400
To: rdufour@ucsd.edu
Subject: ship schedules
Dear Rose:
Rumors are still flying about the Melville schedule for MELT. I let my
fellow MELT investigators know that Sept. 27, 1995 was the new, planned
departure date, but they have heard different dates from different sources
and would like to have that date confirmed. In addition, people would like
to know the dates of the second leg so that they can plan for other uses of
the instruments. Could you please send me a copy of the latest schedule?
Thanks, Don
***********************************
From: Donald_Forsyth@brown.edu
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 94 14:09:08 -0400
To: knox@sio.ucsd.edu (Bob Knox), alan@faraday.whoi.edu (Alan D. Chave)
Subject: MELT and Melville schedule
Cc: rdufour@ucsd.edu
For the seismological component of MELT, we want a minimum of 6 months
passive listening (after any active airgunning) between the last deployment
on the first leg and the first pickup on the second leg, which translates
to a minimum of 7 months between departure dates for the two legs. Thus,
if the first cruise leaves Sept 27, then the end of April or the beginning
of May is fine for the second leg as far as the seismological component is
concerned. Departing any earlier than the end of April would not give us
adequate recording time. Delaying the EM deployment and OBS pickup leg
somewhat gives no particular problem for MELT itself. If the departure on
the second leg is as late as June, however, there may be other conflicts
for usage of the OBSs during summer 1996. For that, I will have to check
with Mike Purdy, John Orcutt, Spahr Webb, and LeRoy Dorman. I will send a
copy of this message to them and ask for their constraints.
Departing on the first leg any earlier than Sept. 27, 1995 will definitely
cause conflicts for use of the OBSs.
*****************************
From: Donald_Forsyth@brown.edu
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 13:08:49 -0400
To: knox@sio.ucsd.edu (Bob Knox), rdufour@ucsd.edu
Subject: MELT and Melville schedule
Cc: alan@faraday.whoi.edu, orcutt@bull.ucsd.edu, ldorman@ucsd.edu,
scwebb@ucsd.edu, mpurdy@cliff.whoi.edu
Dear Bob and Rose:
After consulting with the OBS groups on the feasibility of delaying the
recovery leg, it has become clear that there is a very important constraint
on the duration of the deployment. The battery packs that run the
instrument, including the clocks, are designed for approximately a 6 month
deployment. Additional batteries could be added for a slightly longer
deployment, but to go beyond 7 months would require redesign of the
instruments because there simply is not space to add more batteries. If
the clocks die, then calibration for drift at the end of the experiment is
not possible and the scientific value of the whole experiment is seriously
compromised. It is essential,then, that the cruise to pick up the
instruments start no later than the end of April.
Don
***********************************
From: Donald_Forsyth@brown.edu
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 11:27:26 -0500
X-Sender: Donald_Forsyth@postoffice.brown.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: rdufour@ucsd.edu
Dear Rose, I've received a reply from John as follows:
Don, your message took a little while to reach me - I'm presently
at sea south of Australia at the AAD doing some seismology.
With regard to logistics, it would be a simple matter to close
up our van with all the equipment in it. The agent could
simply off load and ship back to San Diego. I wouldn't have
to send anyone to New Zealand to manage this aspect.
Perry Crampton is also at sea with me and I discussed this
issue with him. While he doesn't have any conflicting
commitments at this time, he will have to travel to NZ
to offload his airgun equipment - it isn't as neatly
containerized as my OBS stuff. He will also need a
helper for this. Offloading in NZ will, thus, represent an
increased cost for me.
The dates are a problem, however. While all my OBSs will
be on the seafloor, I will be using much of the equipment
in the van (maybe even the van itself) to support my
"L-CHEAPO" OBH fleet which is going to sea with Marcia
and Dave Caress as early as January, 1996. If at all possible,
I'd really like to see a Papette port call at the end of the leg.
The ship's also going to be low on fuel by the time it reaches
Easter Island and getting fuel there has become an increasingly
hit-or-miss situation.
Don
Donald W. Forsyth
Dept. of Geological Sciences
Brown University
Providence, RI 02912
E-Mail: Donald_Forsyth@brown.edu
Fax: (401) 863-2058
Phone: (401) 863-1699
**************************************
From: Donald_Forsyth@brown.edu
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 15:33:29 -0500
X-Sender: Donald_Forsyth@postoffice.brown.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: shipsked@ucsd.edu (Rose Dufour)
Subject: latest Melville schedule
Dear Rose,
Could you please send me a copy of whatever you have as the latest version
of the Melville schedule? We are having a cruise planning meeting next
week and I would like to be as up-to-date as possible.
Thanks, Don
Donald W. Forsyth
Dept. of Geological Sciences
Brown University
Providence, RI 02912
E-Mail: Donald_Forsyth@brown.edu
Fax: (401) 863-2058
Phone: (401) 863-1699
**************************
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 94 13:30:12 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: rdufour@ucsd.edu
From: knox@sio.ucsd.edu (Bob Knox)
Subject: Re: MELT and Melville schedule
More on the MELT caper. Let's talk about this on Monday. Bob
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 94 13:31:27 EDT
From: alan@faraday.whoi.edu (Alan D. Chave)
To: Donald_Forsyth@brown.edu
Subject: Re: MELT and Melville schedule
Cc: knox@sio.ucsd.edu
If this means that the EM instruments need to be shipped in
March (presuming a foreign port), then we will have a serious
problem. There is no way to construct and adequately test 30+
new instruments on that timescale given that we are at sea in
March-April 1995 on a different EM experiment, and that one of the
essential engineers will be out for 1-2 months in mid-1995 due
to necessary surgery. We will do our
best, but there is a very real possibility that the EM part of
MELT will end up being postponed. The best solution I can see
would be to delay the deployment of the seismic part of MELT
by a month (if that is feasible).
Alan
***********************
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 15:18:26 EST
From: scheirer@emma.geo.brown.EDU (Daniel Scheirer)
To: shipsked@ucsd.edu
Subject: u/w geophysics subcontract for MELT
Cc: scheirer@emma.geo.brown.EDU
Dear Rose,
Don Forsyth and I have contacted Dave Epp about adding underway
geophysical data collection to the up-coming MELT deployment
leg on Melville (~Oct., 1995). Epp has verbally agreed to the
following plan, and we'd like to have official SIO documentation
to include as a new subcontract to Brown's budget. (Are you the
person to draft these things up? Don thought so.) The costs
are based on the 1995 values in the costs of services document
you sent me in November. Here's the breakdown:
SIO Subcontract
Let me know how this looks. We're presuming that there is no explicit charge for the navigation and magnetics data. If you could send the estimate for this to us ASAP, we'd appreciate it.
Also, have you heard from Epp re. the scheduling of the Johnson-SEIR vs. Lonsdale legs in Austral Summer '95-'96?
Thanks very much, Dan
................................................................... Dan Scheirer Email: scheirer@emma.geo.brown.edu Department of Geological Sciences Office: 401-863-7573 Box 1846 (<-- important!!) Lab: 401-863-1701 Brown University Fax: 401-863-2058 Providence, RI 02912 ************************ Date: Fri, 7 Oct 94 13:30:12 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 To: rdufour@ucsd.edu From: knox@sio.ucsd.edu (Bob Knox) Subject: Re: MELT and Melville schedule More on the MELT caper. Let's talk about this on Monday. Bob >Date: Fri, 7 Oct 94 13:31:27 EDT >From: alan@faraday.whoi.edu (Alan D. Chave) >To: Donald_Forsyth@brown.edu >Subject: Re: MELT and Melville schedule >Cc: knox@sio.ucsd.edu > > >If this means that the EM instruments need to be shipped in >March (presuming a foreign port), then we will have a serious >problem. There is no way to construct and adequately test 30+ >new instruments on that timescale given that we are at sea in >March-April 1995 on a different EM experiment, and that one of the >essential engineers will be out for 1-2 months in mid-1995 due >to necessary surgery. We will do our >best, but there is a very real possibility that the EM part of >MELT will end up being postponed. The best solution I can see >would be to delay the deployment of the seismic part of MELT >by a month (if that is feasible). > >Alan ******************************* Date: Mon, 3 Oct 94 09:06:50 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 To: rdufour@ucsd.edu From: knox@sio.ucsd.edu (Bob Knox) Subject: Re: melt cruise schedule Rose - further info. Sounds as if the desire is for 2nd cruise not later than 7 months after first. But let's see what Forsyth says. Bob >Date: Mon, 3 Oct 94 11:53:58 EDT >From: alan@faraday.whoi.edu (Alan D. Chave) >To: knox@sio.ucsd.edu >Subject: Re: melt cruise schedule > > >Bob: > >I have passed your message on to Don Forsyth, as I do not want >to presume to speak for the seismic part of MELT re deployment >times. However, it is my understanding that 7 months is about >the limit of their recording capacity. I will stay in touch >with Rose on this. Thanks for the help. > >Alan ******************************* Date: Mon, 3 Oct 94 08:17:13 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 To: alan@faraday.whoi.edu (Alan D. Chave) From: knox@sio.ucsd.edu (Bob Knox) Subject: Re: melt cruise schedule Cc: rdufour@ucsd.edu >Rose and Bob: > >I heard last week that the first leg of MELT (which is >being coordinated by Don Forsyth) is now scheduled on the >Melville for early September to late October 95. I had earlier >seen a ship schedule which had it running from mid-October to >late November. Our most current schedule, which stems from the UNOLS scheduling meeting of 9/20 and various levels of agency guidance there about who should do what to whom, now shows the Forsyth MELT work San Diego-Papeete, Sep 27 - Nov 06, 1995. It's somewhat earlier than previous versions as you note, driven by needs of other programs to capitalize on using the ship in southern summer for high latitude work. Nobody has any firm 1996 schedules at this range, at least past the earliest part of the year. The 7-month gap is a factor that schedulers - ourselves and others - should know, as one of the myriad of constraints (or desiderata) nationally. Rose has your message and will dial it into the mixture. Is the constraint that the 1996 work should follow the 1995 by 7 months, or by at least 7 months, or by not more than 7 months? If "at least" then there would still be time to sort ship schedules so as not to collapse your instrument development/production time too much. Keep Rose advised. We'll do our best to reach feasible compromises, which is the name of the game. Regards, Bob
Internet: shipsked@ucsd.edu
WWW: http://sio.ucsd.edu/
shipsked@ucsd.edu