|
DATE SENT |
DOCUMENTS SENT |
|
|
Check-off list |
|
2/2/00 |
Pre-cruise letter w/forms |
|
n/a |
Radioisotope form |
|
2/22/00 |
Chief Scientist letter |
|
|
Post-cruise letter w/forms |
|
PRC- 8/99, received
4/7/2000 |
Foreign clearance package* |
Received: from vaio by revelle.UCSD.EDU (SMI-8.6/UCSDUUCPGENERIC.4) id RAA23023 to ; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 17:26:35 GMT Reply-To: "Steven R. Ramp" <oceanman@sdsioa.ucsd.edu> From: "Steven R. Ramp" <oceanman@revelle.ucsd.edu> To: "Thomas Althouse" <capt@mpl.ucsd.edu>, "Rose Dufour" <shipsked@ucsd.edu> Subject: Work Area Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:28:17 -0700 X-Priority: 3 Rose and Tom, Just in case you are having trouble with the faxes: 1. The northern CTD line runs from 1 29 58.0 126 32.0 to 16 29 18.0 127 54.0 2. The southern CTD line runs from 17 29 17.0 126 32.0 to 32 28 36.0 127 58.0 3. The seismic survey focusses on the NW corner of the box. If you draw a diagonal from 29N 126 30E to 30N, 127 30E, you'd have most of it. 4. The cores/CTDs are spread around the box according to what we learn from the underway seismics. Regards, Steve Steven R. Ramp On Board ROGER REVELLE oceanman@sdsioa.ucsd.edu
Received: from vaio by revelle.UCSD.EDU (SMI-8.6/UCSDUUCPGENERIC.4) id RAA21866 to ; Mon, 10 Apr 2000 17:03:15 GMT Reply-To: "Steven R. Ramp" <oceanman@sdsioa.ucsd.edu> From: "Steven R. Ramp" <oceanman@revelle.ucsd.edu> To: "Rose Dufour" <shipsked@ucsd.edu>, "Thomas Althouse" <capt@mpl.ucsd.edu> Subject: Cruise Time Line Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:04:57 -0700 X-Priority: 3 Hi Tom and Rose, This is to reiterate what we went over before we were cut off. Deploy Moorings, about 12 hours Occupy CTD line A, northern line, about 16 hours Do underway seismic survey, about 8 days Do coring and CTD grid in box, about 3 days Occupy CTD line B, southern line, about 16 hours Recover moorings, about 12 hours. If this doesn't add up to midnight on the 25th, fudge the underway seismic time to make it work! Thanks for handling this for us. Steve Steven R. Ramp On Board ROGER REVELLE oceanman@sdsioa.ucsd.edu
Received: from vaio by revelle.UCSD.EDU (SMI-8.6/UCSDUUCPGENERIC.4) id GAA12618 to ; Sat, 8 Apr 2000 06:59:51 GMT From: "Steven R. Ramp" <revelle!oceanman@revelle.ucsd.edu> Subject: WE'RE UNDERWAY! Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 00:01:18 -0700 X-Priority: 3 Hello Everyone, It was a magnificient feeling to finally steam away from the pier in Pusan and out into the Tsushima Straits on our way to the study region in the East China Sea. The REVELLE is the smoothest, quietest ship I have every been on. I can still barely tell we have left the pier. Weather is good as is everyone's spirits. We have about 27 scientists on board, including 2 from the People's Rebublic of China, 1 from Taiwan, and 3 Korean students from Hanyang University. It's about a day's steam to the study area, so everyone now is just getting used to the ship and taking it easy. Here are the shipboard e-mail rules of the road: 1. DO send to revelle!<mailto:oceanman@sdsioa.ucsd.edu>oceanman@sdsioa.ucsd.edu. Use the whole thing, even if the rediculous microsoft software tries to tell you not to include the revelle! part. 2. DO NOT hit the reply button, which will not work. 3. DO send all the plain text you want within the body of the message. 4. DO NOT send microsoft word attachments, which are almost as bad as pictures. 5. DO NOT send pictures, which are too slow and expensive. 6. DO check the web site regularly. I will send one or two per day to the web site, and everybody can see them there. The address is <http://www.oc.nps.navy.mil/cruiselive>www.oc.nps.navy.mil/cruiselive. We'll update the narrative too. The mail is officially downloaded at 10 am and 10 pm, but in fact Ron downloads it more often than that, so the turnaround is pretty good. My thanks to everyone who helped make this possible! Best regards, Steve Steven R. Ramp On Board ROGER REVELLE revelle!<mailto:oceanman@sdsioa.ucsd.edu>oceanman@sdsioa.ucsd.edu
X-Sender: capt@murex.ucsd.edu Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 16:27:31 -0700 To: shipsked@ucsd.edu, woodys@odf.ucsd.edu, restech@sdsioa.ucsd.edu From: Thomas Althouse <capt@mpl.ucsd.edu> Subject: ROGER REVELLE Port Calls Cc: capt@mpl.ucsd.edu, seaweed@mpl.ucsd.edu, larry@mpl.ucsd.edu I just got off the phone with Tom Desjardins. We have settled with the science party regarding port calls at the end of this cruise. Plan is: 24 April 2359 Complete 15 days science 28 April 0800 Arrive Hng Kong 29 April 0800 Depart Hong Kong 30 April 1100 Arrive Kaohsiung 3 May TBD Depart Kaohsiung for Honolulu (It may be possible to advance this to late on 2 May) I am arranging port calls as indicated above.
From: "Nasaka, Yoshio" <NasakaYX@state.gov> To: "'SRRamp@aol.com'" <SRRamp@aol.com>, "'shipsked@ucsd.edu'" <shipsked@ucsd.edu> Cc: simmenj@onr.navy.mil, kuhnb@onr.navy.mil, ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil, chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil, "Cocke, William T (OES)" <CockeWT@state.gov> Subject: RE: More Information Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 22:35:41 -0400 Dear Steve and Rose: "Your request will be approved by next Tuesday (April 11) at the latest", was a verbal commitment given to me by the MOFA official Steve met March 30 in Tokyo. To Rose: Steve suggested that I pass a Japanese government consent to you for relaying to Steve who does not know his E-mail address aboard R/V Roger Revelle. I will do so when I hear from the Japanese government next week. Have a nice weekend! Yoshio Nasaka > -----Original Message----- > From: SRRamp@aol.com [SMTP:SRRamp@aol.com] > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 10:34 AM > To: NasakaYX@state.gov > Cc: simmenj@onr.navy.mil; kuhnb@onr.navy.mil; ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil; > chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil; CockeWT@state.gov > Subject: Re: More Information > > Dear Yoshio, > > Thanks for the note. To the question: > > However, how would you > answer if you were asked, "the purpose of your expansion request > was to check the continental shelf break and continental slope > regions"? > > I would answer "No problem" because the region 28-30N, 127-128E contains > a > very nice piece of the continental shelf break and continental slope > regions > to study. Given the length of the cruise we decided to focus our efforts > on > just one area rather than trying to study two or more. We were spreading > ourselves too thin to try and do this area and a second area down south > too. > Better to do just one area well. > > I think the dates could stay the same, that is, as soon as possible to May > 4, > 2000. We will actually leave a little before then but why confuse the > issue? > > I'll call you in a half hour or so or you can call me. I'm still at the > Commodore Hotel until noon. The phone number is 82 51 466 9101 Room 1421. > > > Best regards, > Steve Ramp
From: SRRamp@aol.com Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 03:17:17 EDT Subject: Lastest (again) from Pusan To: simmenj@onr.navy.mil, kuhnb@onr.navy.mil, ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil, chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil, goodmal@onr.navy.mil, herrf@onr.navy.mil, capt@mpl.ucsd.edu, shipsked@ucsd.edu, knox@sio.ucsd.edu CC: BarrelCats@aol.com Jeff et al., To get the official clearance on paper, SOA required us to resubmit the clearance form. He faxed us a copy and we (Lynch, Chiu, Bartek, Ramp) spent the morning doing this. We then faxed it back to Renhe Zhang (who is working very hard by the way) with copy to the U.S. Embassy (Robert Armstrong). We followed up with a phone call to Zhang to be sure he received it ok and understood all our comments. Renhe then translated the form and hand-carried it to SOA to walk it through the system at 1500 today. We only need the SOA level now, we are done with the Foreign ministries. Zhang said he would try very hard to get this approval to us by tomorrow. We gave him four fax numbers to send it to: Embassy, Commodor Hotel, Ship, and Scripps. The Chinese ship riders arrived today at noon and are in the Commodore hotel. CS picked them up at the airport and brought them here. They are young guys, one PhD maybe three years ago and the other still an advanced PhD student. They are keen to get out and do some work, same as the rest of us. Everybody except Ching-Sang will move to the ship tomorrow. We are still publicly claiming to sail at 1600 tomorrow but in all likely hood will have everyone sleep on board and sail at 0800 Saturday. It will likely take all day to get the clearance and we need to maintain the Chinese phone contact at the Hotel. This still leaves us plenty of time to get to the site by 0600 Monday, which is when we asked the clock to start ticking. We will have 15 days from then. The tentative schedule looks like this: 7 April 1600 Depart Pusan 10 April 0600 Arrive study region (we allowed plenty of time!) 10-25 April Do the work 25-26 April Steam Shanghai 26-27 April In port Shanghai 27-29 April Steam Kaohsiung 29 April - 1 May In port Kaohsiung, offload 1 May Ship free to steam to Honolulu, science goes home. I spoke by email and telephone to Mr. Nasaka at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo. Ten agencies have asked to review the extended request. This is going on in parallel, they all have it now. It was distributed shortly after my visit there on 30 March. I notified Mr. Nasaka that all we really need in the extension, as dictated by circumstances, is now the small area 28-30N, 127-128E if he thought that would be less sensitive and easier to promulgate through the system. (The southern extension is more sensitive and we don't need it anymore). He is very diligent and will keep working on it as we head out there. We will begin work within 28-30N, 126.5-127E, where we already have approval from Japan. So much for here now. Keep in touch. Regards, Steve 82 51 466 9101 (until noon tomorrow)
X-Sender: capt@murex.ucsd.edu Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 10:37:48 -0700 To: revelle!master@sdsioa.ucsd.edu From: Thomas Althouse <capt@mpl.ucsd.edu> Subject: Follow on port calls Cc: knox@sio.ucsd.edu, shipsked@ucsd.edu, woodys@odf.ucsd.edu, seaweed@mpl.ucsd.edu, larry@mpl.ucsd.edu, capt@mpl.ucsd.edu Tom, Now that it appears the leg will get underway, we need to determine the sequence of events after the science is completed. From Steve Ramp's messages it would appear that a stop on the mainland is still desired, followed by transit to Kaohsiung to offload. Currently, I have a port call arranged in Kaohsiung 6-8 May. We also have tentative arrangements to berth at Ocean Terminal in Hong Kong overnight around the 4th. I believe that both of these arrangements can be adjusted as necessary to meet the revised schedule. I have not yet contacted an agent in Shanghai but do not believe it will be too difficult to arrange if that is what the science party desires. A quick check of the charts reveals the following. Distance from NW corner of PRC work area to Shanghai 274 nm Distance from Shanghai to Kaohsiung via Taiwan Straits 604 nm Total - 878 nm, 74 hrs or 3 days 2 hrs Distance from SW corner of PRC area to Hong Kong via straits 770 nm Distance from Hong Kong to Kaohsiung 330 nm Total - 1100 nm, 92hr or 3 days 20 hrs These times do not include transit from sea buoy to berth and back or any inport time. We are now apparently two weeks away from port calls. I need to know where we want to stop, when and for how long so I can get thinks moving and be ready when the ship arrives. Please discuss with Steve Ramp and Jim Lynch as soon as things settle down and let me know what they want to do. A.
From: SRRamp@aol.com Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 05:58:56 EDT Subject: Looking Good! To: simmenj@onr.navy.mil, kuhnb@onr.navy.mil, ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil, chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil, SRRamp@aol.com CC: shipsked@ucsd.edu, capt@mpl.ucsd.edu, knox@sio.ucsd.edu, glen@paddle.whoi.edu, herrf@onr.navy.mil, goodmal@onr.navy.mil, BarrelCats@aol.com All, We just got a call from Renhe Zhang saying that SOA notified him that the cruise is fully approved for 15 days in the 28-30N, 126.5-128E study region. We'd like more time but we'll take it to have a good cruise and keep our oars in the water. They want a revised cruise plan for the new region which the scientists here in Pusan will generate this evening and fax to Renhe Zhang. They will begin generating the documents in parallel and send them to the ship tomorrow. I then spoke with Robert Armstrong, who tried to speak with SOA to confirm this news, but everyone has gone home. He will try again tomorrow. We also asked Robert to confirm that we get 15 days on site, not counting the steam time from Pusan or on to Shanghai or Hong Kong and then Kaohsiung. He said he will check on this for us. The PRC shipriders are flying in and will arrive noon tomorrow. CS and local agent will pick them up at the airport and bring them directly to the ship via small boat. We are getting the word around and will get everyone else on board first thing tomorrow am. I can't believe it! Cheers, Steve One Happy Boy!
From: SRRamp@aol.com Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 03:29:46 EDT Subject: Latest from Pusan To: simmenj@onr.navy.mil CC: goodmal@onr.navy.mil, herrf@onr.navy.mil, kuhnb@onr.navy.mil, chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil, glen@paddle.whoi.edu, shipsked@ucsd.edu, capt@mpl.ucsd.edu, knox@sio.ucsd.edu, BarrelCats@aol.com, SRRamp@aol.com, ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil April 5, 2000 Pusan, South Korea Dear Jeff et al., Here is the latest so everyone is on the same page. Ching-Sang is still on the phone downstairs so when he comes up I will add his news here also. I just got off he phone with Robert Armstrong in the U.S. Embassy, Beijing. Robert is working very hard for us and has a firm grasp of all the issues. Yesterday after speaking with Admiral Gaffney, he sent a message to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The message was directed to the Director General for Treaties and Law and copied to the Director General for Oceania and North America. These gentlemen are approximately equivalent to the Assistant Secretary of State level in the U.S. They are at the decision-making level. The message reviewed the situation well and requested a decision within two days or we will abandon the project. This would be Thursday April 6 Pusan time. He did not give a time of day. The request presently on the table is to operate within 28.0-30.0N, 126.5-128.0E for 30 days. This is perfectly clear to everybody and the Chinese side is pushing for the same thing. We have SOA's endorsement for this proposal and both sides are trying to shake an answer out of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Robert received a reply today from Mr. Chung Ming Ming, the Director General for Oceania and North America. The message stated simply "We will have a decision for you soon and I hope it will be positive." The question of course is what is "soon." I asked Robert for his read on this, i.e., do they really intend to do something or is this just their way of saying "no." Delay until the other guy gets sick of it and goes away, thereby avoiding a confrontation. He said it could be either. On the positive side, he said Ming has a good reputation as a go-to guy when you want to get something done, and is at the decision-making level. He sounds very sincere on the phone that he is trying to help. He is one of the better Chinese to be working with. Robert will ping on SOA again between 4:30-5:00 Beijing time. Depending on how that conversation goes, he may also contact Ming again too. He will then call me here at the hotel to say what he learned. This just in from Ching-Sang. He spoke with Renhe Zhang, who also wanted Robert Armstrong's phone number to speak directly with him (Armstrong speaks Chinese). Renhe says, that SOA says, that one Ministry has approved it today and now it is at the other ministry. This second one is the last one we need. So it appears progress was made today in that it got through one of the ministries, now on to the next. One ministry per day is likely a reasonable pace in China! I will write again when I hear from Robert Armstrong around six. Still hangin' in there, Best regards, Steve ps In case you are wondering, barrelcats is my family's email address.
X-Sender: knox@siomail.ucsd.edu Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 08:18:11 -0700 To: "Mashall Orr" <orr@wave31i.nrl.navy.mil> From: Bob Knox <rknox@ucsd.edu> Subject: RE: Latest on ASIAEX Cc: shipsked@ucsd.edu, knox@sio.ucsd.edu Marshall - as I understand the matter from Tom Cocke at State, who has the responsibility for clearances for US vessels: a. US policy is to secure clearances from all nations claiming a particular area (whether as EEZ, territorial sea, etc.), not just one or a selected set of nations, b. there is generally no distinction made by US as to whether or not a particular claim is tenable or not; we don't get into the business of saying "A's claim is crazy, therefore we will not seek clearance from A." (Presumably if US were signatory to Law of the Sea Convention we might get into the business of weighing whether or not a particular claim was in accord with LOS provisions - the PRC claim would appear not to be - but since we haven't signed LOS, that's not applicable. Talk to Jesse Helms on that score.) c. PRC claims all waters up to the shores of the next country. In this case, that means up to the beaches in the Ryukus, according to Tom. Does it make sense or correpond to normal Law of the Sea boundary definitions? No. Do other nations operate differently? Yes - Germany, for example, tends to pick the most justifiable/straightforward of the overlapping claims in a given instance, and deal with just that nation. Would the US do better to deal selectively a la Germany? Perhaps. In this case the plus could be dealing smoothly with Japan alone. The minus could be that if the PRC chose to get nasty about it, consequences could be awkward - ship seizure, detention of crew and scientists, etc. So, for better or worse, US policy is to get everyone's OK at the front end. One can debate the merits, but as ship operator we (SIO) have to abide by this until/unless policy changes. I hope this helps to clarify. Tom Cocke could give a fuller essay if needed. Regards, Bob >Steve, > >I am on travel and in a hotel room responding to you. In all likelihood the >issue is resolved by this time. > >My response follows. > >Why do we need PRC permission to work in what appears to be the Japanese >economic zone? > >The proposed box barely encompasses the temperature records (west side of >the box)that I sent earlier. Those records showed what appeared to be >strong frontal motion coupled to the tide. Am suspicious that there could >be internal waves at the base of the front probably similar to sections of >the Primer data. Without current meter data one can not guess whether the >flow will have subcritical or greater that critical Froude number and the >type of internal wave activity that will be present. The water depths in the >majority of the proposed area start to exceed our acoustic source depths and >would push us into the Kuroshio. Except in the NW corner of the box we will >not be working in a PO evironment that can be considered to be littoral >like. The area most likely to have internal waves in that section of the >box will limit the acoustic propagation paths to ~ 40km (barely acceptable). > >Need to see more detailed bathymetry, current meter, TS structure and G&G to >make a sound decision. Feel that the data I am carrying (some of which is >contradictory re bathymetry) suggests that we should not commit to an >experiment with PRC in the proposed area. The depths of the area starts to >exclude the reverberations experiments of some of the US participants. >Reverberation has been the focus of the PRC interests in doing experiments >with us. That point seems to be getting lost. In addition, working with >PRC in what appears to be the Japanese economic zone doesn't seem correct. > >Marshall > >-----Original Message----- >From: SRRamp@aol.com [mailto:SRRamp@aol.com] >Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 5:11 PM >To: liu@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov; rpinkel@ucsd.edu; goodmal@onr.navy.mil >Cc: orr >Subject: Fwd: Latest on ASIAEX > > >Tony and Rob, > >I would like your input ASAP if there is anything useful we can do with >internal waves in the region proposed by the PRC. > >Marshall, need your comments also, should have cc'd you yesterday, sorry. > >Steve
From: "Cocke, William T (OES)" <CockeWT@state.gov> To: "'Bob Knox'" <rknox@ucsd.edu>, revelle!master@sdsioa.ucsd.edu, "Steven R. Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil>, Jeff Simmen <simmenj@onr.navy.mil>, Ching-Sang Chiu <chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil>, Beverly Kuhn <kuhnb@onr.navy.mil> Cc: Frank Herr <herrf@onr.navy.mil>, Louis Goodman <goodmal@onr.navy.mil>, Bob Knox <knox@sio.ucsd.edu>, Thomas Althouse <capt@mpl.ucsd.edu>, Rose Dufour <shipsked@ucsd.edu> Subject: RE: Fw: PRC Clearance Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 12:01:49 -0400 I have confirmed with our geographer that PRC approval is required for Ryuku Is. area. Tom > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Knox [SMTP:rknox@ucsd.edu] > Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 11:38 AM > To: revelle!master@sdsioa.ucsd.edu; Steven R. Ramp; Jeff Simmen; > Ching-Sang Chiu; Beverly Kuhn > Cc: Frank Herr; Louis Goodman; Bob Knox; Thomas Althouse; Rose Dufour; > tcocke@state.gov; tomcocke@yahoo.com > Subject: Re: Fw: PRC Clearance > > All - since the Chinese claim extends up to the shoreline on the Japanese > islands, as I understand the situation from State Dept., such a passage > inside the Ryukus collecting SeaBeam or other underway data would require > PRC clearance. So this seems like a non-starter to me. Transit is OK, > but > uncleared data gathering is not. > > Bob > > At 11:38 PM -0800 3/31/00, Steven R. Ramp wrote: > >All, > . > . > . > > > > The group over lunch kicked around a transit to Taiwan along the inside of > >the Ryuku Islands. This was half humourous but the more I think about it > >there is some merit. WHOI would prefer to offload in Kaohsiung where they > >can crate and pack themselves rather than having the local dock stevedores > >do it. We all have return tickets from there, and we could maybe gather > >some underway data along the way. Plus, it would be very good for Taiwan. > >Any thoughts on this?
X-Sender: capt@murex.ucsd.edu Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 08:15:29 -0700 To: knox@sio.ucsd.edu, shipsked@ucsd.edu From: Thomas Althouse <capt@mpl.ucsd.edu> Subject: Lynch Trip >>Received: from master by revelle.UCSD.EDU (SMI-8.6/UCSDUUCPGENERIC.4) > id MAA05608 to <capt@mpl.ucsd.edu>; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 12:17:38 GMT >Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 12:17:38 GMT >X-Sender: master@revelle (Unverified) >X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 >To: capt@mpl.ucsd.edu >From: "Master (R/V Revelle)" <revelle!master@sdsioa.ucsd.edu> >Subject: Lynch Trip > >Captain > >We moved back into pier 8 today at 1300. We have permission to lie here for >the next couple of days. Dr Lynch asked if we could stay a few more days. >He is expecting some action from China and DC in the next couple of days. > >I told him unless I heard different from Scripps we would stand by awaiting >further developments. > >Desjardins
From: "Nasaka, Yoshio" <NasakaYX@state.gov> To: "'SRRamp@aol.com'" <SRRamp@aol.com>, simmenj@onr.navy.mil, kuhnb@onr.navy.mil, ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil, chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil, gaffnep@onr.navy.mil, herrf@onr.navy.mil, goodmal@onr.navy.mil, knox@sio.ucsd.edu, capt@mpl.ucsd.edu, shipsked@ucsd.edu, "Kloth, Edward W" <KlothEW@state.gov>, "Bleyle, David L" <BleyleDL@state.gov> Cc: "Cocke, William T (OES)" <CockeWT@state.gov> Subject: RE: Latest on ASIAEX Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 01:52:43 -0400 Below is the response from the Embassy Tokyo to Para 9 of Prof. Ramp's E-Mail: The Foreign Ministry official whom you met last Thursday in Tokyo is waiting clearances of the revised and expanded study region from other Japanese ministries/agencies concerned. He will let you know, thru us, clearances as soon as he receives. Regards, Yoshio Nasak > -----Original Message----- > From: SRRamp@aol.com [SMTP:SRRamp@aol.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 12:49 AM > To: simmenj@onr.navy.mil; kuhnb@onr.navy.mil; ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil; > chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil; gaffnep@onr.navy.mil; herrf@onr.navy.mil; > goodmal@onr.navy.mil; knox@sio.ucsd.edu; capt@mpl.ucsd.edu; > shipsked@ucsd.edu; klothew@state.gov; nasakayx@state.gov; > bleyledl@state.gov > Subject: Latest on ASIAEX > > Friday 31 March, 2000, 12:00 midnight > Seoul, South Korea > > All, > > I just spoke with Ching-Sang in China. Here's where we stand. > > 1. SOA agreed to go forward with the following study region: > 28.0 - 30.0N > 126.5-128.0E > The request is for 30 days. > > 2. SOA moved this proposal forward this afternoon (to foreign affairs and > defense) and has promised a verbal response by 0930 tomorrow morning > before > Ching-Sang leaves China. > > 3. We reminded them that we need an official reply by Monday April 3 at > the > latest. > > 4. The higher levels of government have only two proposals on the table, > the > original one (two regions, one in the ECS and one in the SCS) and this > one. > The expanded East China Sea box proposed for us by Charlie Kennel never > made > it past SOA. The optional southern box in the ECS proposed by Ching-Sang > also never made it past SOA. > > 5. I have spoken with Jim Lynch in Pusan and asked him to draw this on a > chart and start thinking about it with the rest of the scientific party. > We > will pow-wow on this in Pusan over lunch at 1300 tomorrow. > > 6. The PRC ship riders received their visas from Korea today and are ready > to > travel and board the ship. At least one good thing! They are willing to > ride to Hawaii if necessary to get off. I think we can do better than > that. > Will hash this out tomorrow. It depends where we go and for how long. > Certainly to smooth the way for next year, if we are still interested, a > port > stop in PRC would be desirable. Shanghai is a lot closer to the present > options than Hong Kong. > > 7. Obviously, even this proposal could still be rejected. This makes it > easy: We go home. > > 8. Problem: This region overlaps with the approved region by Japan only > in > a narrow strip 2 degrees of latitude by 0.5 degrees on longitude. This > makes > it hard to execute any sort of sensible sampling plan until we get the > revised, expanded clearance from Japan. > > 9. Tokyo embassy please be advised of the need to advance the > revised, > expanded study region asap. > > Regards, > Steve
X-Sender: rob@opg1.ucsd.edu Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:18:52 -0800 To: SRRamp@aol.com From: Rob Pinkel <rpinkel@ucsd.edu> Subject: Re: Fwd: Latest on ASIAEX Cc: simmenj@onr.navy.mil, kuhnb@onr.navy.mil, ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil, chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil, gaffnep@onr.navy.mil, herrf@onr.navy.mil, goodmal@onr.navy.mil, knox@sio.ucsd.edu, capt@mpl.ucsd.edu, shipsked@ucsd.edu, klothew@state.gov, nasakayx@state.gov, bleyledl@state.gov Steve: As I look at my crude chart, it seems that the topography drops from 200 to 1000m fairly quickly & then descends unevenly down to 2000m. I don't see an obvious soliton generation site offshore, but the shoaling of regular internal waves might be interesting to study here. If shallow water solitons develop over the shelf, we should see them in the Hydro Sonar during the course of the sea floor survey. We can dcecide priorities during this period If the site proves boring oceanographically, could we head for home via a port stop in south Taiwan, and at least transit the exciting region? Will the Taiwanese Sea Soar survey be moved to the new site? Hang in there!! Rob >Tony and Rob, > >I would like your input ASAP if there is anything useful we can do with >internal waves in the region proposed by the PRC. > >Marshall, need your comments also, should have cc'd you yesterday, sorry. > >Steve
X-Sender: capt@murex.ucsd.edu Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:08:40 -0800 To: revelle!master@sdsioa.ucsd.edu From: Thomas Althouse <capt@mpl.ucsd.edu> Subject: Status Cc: shipsked@ucsd.edu, woodys@odf.ucsd.edu Tom, WELCOME BACK!! We received word from Steve Ramp, the ASIAEX Coordinator, in Tokyo this morning that the Japoanese are agreeable to modifing the proposed work area which would allow them to meet science objectives for this cruise. The work area would be modified to: Point Latitude Longitude 1 30° 30'N 125° 00'E 2 26° 30.N 125° 00'E 3 26° 30'N 126° 30'E 4 28° 00'N 128° 00'E 5 30° 30'N 128° 00'E Steve indicated that this would probably take a few days to get final approval but that the Japanese side was all in favor and it was just a matter of getting all the signatures. He will remain in Tokyo today and arrive in Pusan at 10:00, 1 April. Of course, we still need PRC clkearance as I understand it since they also claim this area. Ramp indicates that one of the science party, Ching-Sang, has been in China and says that there is some movement toward approving the modified work area. Ramp says that Ching-Sang won't arrive in Pusan until 7 PM. That means you won't be able to sail as scheduled at 1600. Please check with Lynch and see if he is aware of this. I will try to clarify from here. You had better let Lawrence know that you won't be sailing on time. Please give me a call after you get up to discuss. A.
From: "Steven R. Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> To: "Nasaka, Yoshio" <NasakaYX@state.gov> Cc: "Knox, Bob" <knox@sio.ucsd.edu>, "Kaneko, Arata" <akaneko@ipc.hiroshima-u.ac.jp>, "Cocke, William T (OES)" <CockeWT@state.gov>, "Dufour, Rose" <shipsked@ucsd.edu>, "Althouse, Tom" <capt@mpl.ucsd.edu>, "Chiu,C-S" <chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil>, "Kuhn, Beverly" <kuhnb@onr.navy.mil>, "Simmen, Jeffrey" <simmenj@onr.navy.mil>, "Kloth, Edward W" <KlothEW@state.gov> Subject: Re: URGENT! Tokyo Visit Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:54:39 -0800 X-Priority: 3 Dear Mr. Nasaka, I think you've got it right. The original dates were Feb 25- May 4. The ECS cruise originally scheduled for March in the ECS under Lou Bartek was cancelled due to no clearance, so we combined the two cruises for 1 April to 6 May. We can live with 4 May, so change of dates is not essential. Final port is Kaohsiung, well out of Japan waters, so we can stop working in Japan waters by May 4. The time period as presently approved by the Japan government is ok. We are still trying to get the South China Sea site, but have received unofficial word from the PRC that we will not. I expect we will not. (The SCS area requested is unchanged, but well outside Japan waters anyway). Therefore, we are trying to expand the East China Sea site exactly as you describe below, to 126.0-130.5N, 125-128E. Thank you very much, Steve Ramp ----- Original Message ----- From: Nasaka, Yoshio <NasakaYX@state.gov> To: 'Steven Ramp' <ramp> Cc: Knox, Bob <knox@sio.ucsd.edu>; Kaneko, Arata <akaneko@ipc.hiroshima-u.ac.jp>; Cocke, William T (OES) <CockeWT@state.gov>; Dufour, Rose <shipsked@ucsd.edu>; Althouse, Tom <capt@mpl.ucsd.edu>; Chiu,C-S <chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil>; Kuhn, Beverly <kuhnb@onr.navy.mil>; Simmen, Jeffrey <simmenj@onr.navy.mil>; Kloth, Edward W <KlothEW@state.gov> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 5:21 PM Subject: RE: URGENT! Tokyo Visit > Dear Prof. Ramp: > > Before getting in touch with Japanese officials, I have a question > about research dates: > > Research Dates > > a. Rose Dufour in FAX of 10/25/99 said the dates be Feb. 25 - May 4, > 2000. These dates include the port days prior to and after the > first and the last cruise. > > b. Rose Dufour in E-Mail of 12/15/99 said: > The East China Sea cruise on Feb. 28 - March 16 by Dr. Lou Bartek, > The South China Sea cruise on April 7 - May 1 by Dr. Jim Lynch, and > overall coordination by Prof. Steven Ramp. > > c. The Embassy requested the research period from Feb. 25 to May 4, > 2000, and the Japanese Government approved this period. > > d. Now Prof. Ramp refers to the dates April 1 to May 6, 2000, and Tom > Cocke of STATE says Feb. 25 to May 4, 2000. > > Discrepancy in dates may not be so serious for scientists at sea depending > on sea conditions, but they are serious to Japanese government officials. > So please advise. > > With regard to research areas, I would like to confirm with you that: > > Under Para 5 (Geographical Areas) of Application seeking the GOJ consent, > dated August 25, 1999, planned areas for research were: > > South China Sea Sites: 21.00 - 22.50N and 117.00 - 119.00E > and > East China Sea Sites: 28.00 - 30.50N and 125.00 - 127.00E. > > Now Prof. Ramp says that Tom Cocke says that we have been refused > access to the South China Sea by PRC (Tokyo does not understand if > the above South China Sea Sites were refused or not.),so that we are > trying to expand the study region in the Eas China Sea from the Japan > approved area of 28.00-30.50N, 125-127E to 26.00-30.50N, 125-128E. > > Please confirm if the South China Sea Sites requested to and approved > by the Japanese Government remain unchanged, and the new request is > to expand the East China Sea area. > > Sincerely, > > Yoshio Nasaka
From: "Nasaka, Yoshio" <NasakaYX@state.gov> To: "Cocke, William T (OES)" <CockeWT@state.gov> Cc: "'shipsked@ucsd.edu'" <shipsked@ucsd.edu>, "'ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil'" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil>, "Kloth, Edward W" <KlothEW@state.gov> Subject: RE: R/V ROGER REVELLE - 25 Feb - 4 May 2000 Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 02:35:06 -0500 Dear Tom: 1. MOFA wants a diplomatic note for our request for changing research areas. We will be pleased to prepare a DipNote and send it to MOFA but before doing so we have the following concern: 2. We note that that the area already approved by Japan in the East China Sea is within the "Provisional Area" (27.00 - 30.40N) under the new Japan-PRC Fisheries Agreement, where fishing vessels of the two countries will be regulated by a Joint Fisheries Commission to be established soon. The request for expansion of the area to 26.00-30.50N and 125.00-128.00E means coming close to the Diaoyutai Islands, the disputed islands between the two countries. Is everyone confident the request won't place us in the middle of the Japan-China boundary dispute in any way? Best Regards, Yoshio Nasaka > -----Original Message----- > From: Cocke, William T (OES) > Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 10:13 PM > To: Nasaka, Yoshio > Cc: 'shipsked@ucsd.edu'; 'ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil' > Subject: FW: R/V ROGER REVELLE - 25 Feb - 4 May 2000 > > Sorry for the error in my original e-mail. The area is: 26-30.5 deg N; > 125-128 deg E. Tom Cocke > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cocke, William T (OES) > Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 8:07 AM > To: Nasaka, Yoshio > Cc: 'shipsked@ucsd.edu'; 'ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil' > Subject: R/V ROGER REVELLE - 25 Feb - 4 May 2000 > Importance: High > > Owing to clearance problems with PRC, the research areas for the subject > cruise are in the process of being revised (please see BEIJING 2787). Can > you arrange for a similar change to be requested to the Government of > Japan, so that in the event this research cruise can proceed, we will have > their approval? The area in the East China Sea is being expanded to the > following: 26-30.5 deg N; 125-127 deg E. Please advise. Thank you. Tom > Cocke
Reply-To: "Steven Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> From: "Steven Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> To: "Nasaka, Yoshio" <nasakayx@state.gov> Cc: "Knox, Bob" <knox@sio.ucsd.edu>, "Kaneko, Arata" <akaneko@ipc.hiroshima-u.ac.jp>, "Cocke, Tom" <CockeWT@state.gov>, "Dufour, Rose" <shipsked@ucsd.edu>, "Althouse, Tom" <capt@mpl.ucsd.edu>, "Ramp, Steven R." <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil>, "Chiu,C-S" <chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil>, "Kuhn, Beverly" <kuhnb@onr.navy.mil>, "Simmen, Jeffrey" <simmenj@onr.navy.mil> Subject: URGENT! Tokyo Visit Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 13:16:36 -0800 Organization: Naval Postgraduate School X-Priority: 3 Dear Mr. Nasaka, This is about the vessel clearance for the R/V ROGER REVELLE, 1April - 6 May, 2000 You have seen the message from Tom Cocke that we have been refused access to the South China Sea by China (PRC). As a result, we are trying to expand the study region in the East China Sea to allow us to do the work there. The original study region, already approved by Japan, was: 28.0-30.5N, 125-127E We would like to modify the request, to enlarge the box, to: 26.0-30.5N, 125-128E The reason is to allow the study region to include the continental shelf break, needed for one of the experiments. This change is actually good for Japan, as this new region is of much greater interest to Japanese scientists than the South China Sea. There is also a strong group of physical oceanographers in Japan who will be interested. I will be asking them for their support to help get the modified clearance from Japan. I leave tomorrow morning for Pusan via Tokyo. I would like to modifiy my plans to allow a day in Tokyo. Is it possible at this late date to arrange a meeting Thursday morning March 30? I, and perhaps a few Japanese collaborators also, could accompany you to a meeting with the Japanese officials to provide answers to any of the technical questions they might have. Can you recommed some hotels near the U.S. Embassy? I prefer within per diem, but at this late date, would accept any good hotel available. I will check email before leaving late tonight, tomorrow morning your time. Please try and answer by then. Thank you very much. Steve Ramp Prof. Steven R. Ramp Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Ra Naval Postgraduate School 833 Dyer Road Monterey, CA 93943-5122 <mailto:ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil>ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil Phone 831 656 2201 Fax 831 656 2712
X-Sender: capt@murex.ucsd.edu Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:38:16 -0800 To: "Steven Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil>, "Dufour, Rose" <shipsked@ucsd.edu> From: Thomas Althouse <capt@mpl.ucsd.edu> Subject: Re: Directions to ship Cc: "Pettigrew,N" <nealp@maine.maine.edu>, "Chiu,C-S" <chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil>, "Lynch,J" <jlynch@whoi.edu> Steve, I have been trying to call to discuss this but your phone has been busy, I'm sure with the current flap. I'm at a loss as to what to tell you. I do not have any maps of Pusan and in any event do not know where people will be coming from. There is only one Pier 8 in Pusan harbor as far as I know and only one pier operated by the U.S. Army. About all I can recommend is that people have a hotel doorman get them a cab to take them to the U.S. Army Pier 8 in Pusan Port. Tom At 09:02 AM 3/24/00 -0800, Steven Ramp wrote: >>>> Rose, Can you please broadcast to cruise participants some more detailed directions to the REVELLE in Pusan? thanks, Steve Prof. Steven R. Ramp Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Ra Naval Postgraduate School 833 Dyer Road Monterey, CA 93943-5122 <mailto:ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil>ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil Phone 831 656 2201 Fax 831 656 2712
Reply-To: "Steven Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> From: "Steven Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> To: "Zhang Renhe" <zrh@canna.ioa.ac.cn>, "Guan, Dinghau" <lzbai@ftp.kw.ac.cn> Cc: "Dufour, Rose" <shipsked@ucsd.edu>, "Simmen, Jeffrey" <simmenj@onr.navy.mil>, "Kuhn, Beverly" <kuhnb@onr.navy.mil>, "Chiu,C-S" <chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil>, "Ramp, Steven R." <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil>, "Cocke, Tom" <CockeWT@state.gov>, "Bleyle Dave" <BleyleDL@state.gov>, "Zhou, Jixun" <jixun.zhou@me.gatech.edu> Subject: ASIAEX ship clearances Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 13:04:00 -0800 Organization: Naval Postgraduate School X-Priority: 3 March 24, 2000 Dear Professors Zhang and Guan, Last night's communications were taking place from home where I did not have any maps with me. Today, I have plotted the new coordinates, suggested by the PRC, which we heard about from the U.S. Embassy, on a map. These new coordinates (31-32N, 126 30 &endash; 127 30E) are not within the study region discussed at our meetings and specified in the official clearance request (28 00 &endash; 30 30N, 125 00&endash; 127 00E). This new region, just suggested, is located to the northeast of the original region, and is in the Korean EEZ. We did not request a research vessel clearance from Korea, because we didn't need one. The study region we agreed upon is not in the Korean EEZ. It takes six months to obtain a clearance from Korea, so, it is impossible for us to work in this new region. We understand that your government may consider this region contested. It is the official position of the U.S. State Department to request permission from both sides to work in contested areas. Therefore, we cannot work in this new box without express permission from Korea, and this cannot be obtained at this late time. The fact is, this year's experiment is mostly oceanography, and there is no useful oceanography to be done in this new box, even if we could go there. We need to be along the continental shelf break, as in the South China Sea. Our desire is stilll to implement the original scientific plan which calls for research in both the East and South China Seas. Perhaps if it is impossible to work in the South China Sea, we could work near the shelf break in the East China Sea. This could be accomplished by expanding the original box a little, to for instance 26 00 &endash; 30 30N, 125 00 &endash; 128E. This would allow both experiments, bottom interaction and water column effects, to be conducted in the East China Sea. Note this change would also require approval by Japan, but this may be possible. More research vessel time is also required, about 30 days instead of 15. To summarize, to conduct the planned scientific experiments within 31-32N, 126 30 &endash; 127 30E is not possible, and we need a new study region, expanded southward to include the continental shelf break, to go forward with the e xperiment. Furthermore, about 30 days of sea time is required to complete the planned scientific research. Sincerely yours, Jeffrey Simmen, Program Officer, Office of Naval Research Steven R. Ramp, ASIAEX International Scientific Coordinator
Reply-To: "Steven Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> From: "Steven Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> To: "Thomas Althouse" <capt@mpl.ucsd.edu>, <ramp@atlantis.oc.nps.navy.mil> Cc: "Chiu,C-S" <chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil>, "Kuhn, Beverly" <kuhnb@onr.navy.mil>, "Simmen, Jeffrey" <simmenj@onr.navy.mil>, <capt@mpl.ucsd.edu>, <shipsked@ucsd.edu> Subject: Re: Hong Kong Berthing Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:23:11 -0800 Organization: Naval Postgraduate School X-Priority: 3 Hi Tom, As you can see from the recent flurry of mail there is now some doubt about if we go to the South China Sea at all. Speak with Rose if you haven't already. Great job with the Hong Kong berth. I'd like to hold onto this as long as we can while we try and settle the negotiations with China. Politically, it is definately worth the cost. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: Thomas Althouse <capt@mpl.ucsd.edu> To: <ramp> Cc: <shipsked@ucsd.edu>; <capt@mpl.ucsd.edu> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 9:11 AM Subject: Hong Kong Berthing > Steve, > > I told you the other day that our agent in Hong Kong was working on getting > us a good berth there. He has tentatively reserved us a berth at the best > location in town if we want to impress people. We can get a berth at the > Ocean Terminal on the Kowloon side at the foot of Salisbury Road. This is > adjacent to the Star Ferry Terminals. > > This would be a very impressive site to host your PRC counterparts. > Unfortunately, the berthing fee is over $11,000 for a one day stay. What I > need to know is if, politically, it is worth this cost. If you feel it is, > I will try to retain the reservation as long as possible so we can berth > there if the ship does in fact call in Hong Kong. If you do not feel the > cost - benefit tradeoff is worth it, I will let the reservation go. In the > meantime, I have asked the agent about other possible pierside berths and > their cost. > > Tom >
Reply-To: "Steven Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> From: "Steven Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> To: "Dufour, Rose" <shipsked@ucsd.edu> Cc: "Chiu,C-S" <chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil>, "Kuhn, Beverly" <kuhnb@onr.navy.mil>, "Simmen, Jeffrey" <simmenj@onr.navy.mil>, "Althouse, Tom" <capt@mpl.ucsd.edu> Subject: Their New Box Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:09:09 -0800 Organization: Naval Postgraduate School X-Priority: 3 All, Now that I'm back in the office and pulled out the maps, I see that 31-32N, 126.30 - 127 30E is not in the box specified in the clearance request (28-30.5N, 125-127W). It is to the northwest of it, and it is in Korean Waters. Therefore, this box is impossible, and we need to relay this to the Chinese immediately. I will do this upon speaking with Jeff Simmen, who is to call me imminently. Per yesterday's mail which I cc'd to you, we have spelled out our position. Ching-Sang Chiu spoke twice with Renhe Zhang last night. Renhe has gone to SOA to plead the case. Both Guan and Zhang felt that this was a high up decision in the wake of the regional tension generated by the Taiwan election outcome. We are keeping hard at it, but if the present box is the best they can do, we will likely have to walk away. There is no useful science we can do there. Steve Prof. Steven R. Ramp Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Ra Naval Postgraduate School 833 Dyer Road Monterey, CA 93943-5122 <mailto:ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil>ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil Phone 831 656 2201 Fax 831 656 2712
Reply-To: "Steven Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> From: "Steven Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> To: <shipsked@ucsd.edu>, <ramp@atlantis.oc.nps.navy.mil>, "Nasaka, Yoshio" <NasakaYX@state.gov> Cc: "Kloth, Edward W" <KlothEW@state.gov>, "(OES) Cocke, William T" <CockeWT@state.gov> Subject: Re: R/V Revelle (File No. 99-097) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:49:47 -0800 Organization: Naval Postgraduate School X-Priority: 3 Dear Mr. Nasaka, Thank you for your message. We don't mind answering questions. There have been many requests for clearance for the reasearch vessel ROGER REVELLE. As I'm sure you know, the REVELLE conducted several cruises last year and earlier this year in the Japan Sea, and will still carry out another cruise to recover instruments from the Tsushima Strait. Perhaps our request has been confused with one of the many other requests. For our cruise during 1 April to 6 May 2000, we plan to depart Pusan and steam non-stop to our operational area in the East China Sea. The primary operational area is bordered by 28.0 to 30.5 degrees north, 125.0 to 127.0 degrees east, in accordance with all the maps we have sent you previously. This area is partly within the Japanese EEZ but outside Japanese territorial waters. As I study the cruise track on the way out, it looks like it may possibly touch Japanese territorial waters at one point. This line is just a transit, and we are not planning to conduct any scientific research along this line. We can secure all underway instrument systems in Japanese territorial waters along this transit if you so desire. I hope this clarifies the situation. Please let us know if you have further questions. Best regards, Steve Ramp ----- Original Message ----- From: Nasaka, Yoshio <NasakaYX@state.gov> To: <ramp>; <shipsked@ucsd.edu> Cc: (OES) Cocke, William T <CockeWT@state.gov>; Kloth, Edward W <KlothEW@state.gov> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 6:43 PM Subject: R/V Revelle (File No. 99-097) > > Dear Prof. Ramp and Rose: > Thank both of you for prompt responses to the plankton question, > which I have passed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). > They appreciated your quick responses. > > Below is another query from MOFA (I feel sorry for passing > incessant questions): > > "In the Japanese belief, R/V Roger Revelle will only be in the > East China Sea and the South China Sea on its current cruise > endorsed by the GOJ. Yet, the vessel is seen doing some > research in the Sea of Japan and in the territorial sea of Japan. > Please clarify." > > How can I tell the GOJ? > Sincrely, > > Yoshio Nasaka > Scientific Specialist > American Embassy, Tokyo > Phone: 81-3-3224-5045 > FAX: 81-3-3224-5229 > E-Mail: nasakayx@state.gov
Reply-To: "Steven Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> From: "Steven Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> To: "Dufour, Rose" <shipsked@ucsd.edu> Cc: "Chiu,C-S" <chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil>, "Kuhn, Beverly" <kuhnb@onr.navy.mil>, "Simmen, Jeffrey" <simmenj@onr.navy.mil>, "Althouse, Tom" <capt@mpl.ucsd.edu> Subject: Fw: More on Clearance Request Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 14:18:41 -0800 Organization: Naval Postgraduate School X-Priority: 3 Dear Liz/Rose/Tom, Given this response, I think we will: 1. Inquire from our side in Beijing what they hear lately. Do this Monday. 2. Upon our next inquiry to their side, offer up the port call simultaneously. Jeff, please confirm that this is what you want to do via phone or e-mail. cc to Scripps. Thanks, Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: Ji-Xun Zhou <jixun.zhou@me.gatech.edu> To: <ramp> Cc: Simmen, Jeffrey <simmenj@onr.navy.mil>; Chiu,C-S <chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 1:38 PM Subject: Re: More on Clearance Request > Steve, > I could not agree more with Ching-Sang. That is my thought also. > Jixun > > > At 01:23 PM 3/17/00 -0800, you wrote: > >Jeff, > > > > I spoke with Ching-Sang. He thinks, as do I, that we should just make > >the offer of a port call in parallel with our status request. That is, don't > >wait for a reply and then offer, just offer. I think we should do this > >too, because if we get a no, they are very unlikely to change their minds, > >because somebody in government will look bad. This is a little different > >from what Jixun suggested, that is, ask the status, then offer port call if > >necessary. Ching-Sang agrees we make the offer through the embassy > >directly to the decision makers. > > > > The port call further simplifies things by allowing their riders to get > >off. This affair is still not clear at all, and I'm not sure what do > >advise the PRC riders to do yet. I don't think they ever applied for > >Taiwan visas (Jixun, do you know?). So, I favor just offering up the port > >of call with no ifs or conditions as a gesture of our good intentions for > >collaboration. > > > > It's your call I guess. > > > >Best, > >Steve > > > >ps. Tom, let's discuss Monday morning to be sure we have all our ducks in > >a row.
X-Sender: capt@murex.ucsd.edu (Unverified) Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 17:32:04 -0800 To: ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil, tyt@ccms.ntu.edu.tw From: Thomas Althouse <capt@mpl.ucsd.edu> Subject: PRC Natiuonals Cc: shipsked@ucsd.edu, capt@mpl.ucsd.edu Steve, I just got off the phone with the individual at our agents office in Kaohsiung who will be handling REVELLE. I explained the situation and the information we had about transferring the PRC nationals. I would like to get him in touch with David Tang since he knew nothing about this. I told him that David had talked to someone at his agence and then passed the information to us. Clearly this person, a Mr. Wong, had not talked to anyone about it. I asked him to please check around his agency and that I would try to get Daivd's phone number and pass it to him so they could talk. I can't find David's number in any of the e-mails. Can you send it to me so I can get it to Mr. Wong tomorrow? I will also send this to David and perhaps he can talk to Mr. Wong to make sure we have this moving correctly.
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 11:24:25 -0800 (PST) ************************** ODF ***************************** ************************** CRUISE REQUEST ***************************** -------------- PI/REQUESTOR: James Lynch ODF REFERENCE NAME: 04RR.Lynch ASIAEX Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution INDEX: ODF use STS1165(Lynch) Woods Hole, MA 02543 ONR FUNDS PHONE: 508 289 2230 E-MAIL: jim@vaquero.whoi.edu SHIP: REVELLE STS/ODF CTD Technician: Earl Heckman DATES: 01 April, 2000 - 06 May 2000 PORTS: Pusan, Korea - Kao-hsiung Kang, Taiwan __________________________________________________________________________ PERSONNEL REQUIRED: No: 1 ** CTD Technician __________________________________________________________________________ Casts: ?? Equipment Required: THIS EQUIPMENT IS ON BOARD THE REVELLE: CTD SBE 911plus system with acquisition computer, SeaBird programs: Current calibrations entered into the *.con file. Current calibration sheets SeaBird SEASAVE for Windows SeaBird Data Processing programs DOS based. SeaBird Data Processing Manual SeaBird Data Acquisition Manual CTD 9+ Deck unit 11plus Press Digiquartz Primary Sensor Temp SBE 3plus Cond SBE 4C Pump SBE 5T Secondary Sensors Temp SBE 3-01/F Cond SBE 4-02/O Pump2 SBE 5T Spare Sensors Temp SBE 3-01/F Cond SBE 4-02/O Pylon, Sea-Bird 32 Carousel 24-place Rosette 24 10 liter bottles and spares Altimeter EQUIPMENT SHIPPED FEBRUARY 2000: CTD 9+ 6800M SN# 09P9852-0381 (As a backup) Press Digiquartz SN# 58952 (As a backup) Deck unit 11plus SN# 111878 (As a backup) Simrad Altimeter SN# Forms for CTD Operations Stationary supplies for CTD Operations Data Backup media-CD __________________________________________________________________________ Additional Information: Sea-Bird CTD to be used on subsequent expeditions. There is a salinometer and Standard Seawater on board left over from previous expeditions. The ASIAEX Pilot Experiments and Surveys will take place in two areas. The corners of the areas are: 1) (South China Sea) NW:22.5N,118.0E SW:21.5N,118.0E NE:22.5N,119.0E SE:21.5N,119.0E; 2)(East China Sea) NW:30.5N,125.0E SW:28.0N,125.0E NE:30.5N,127E SE:28.0N,127.0E Shipping Details (Approx.Dates,etc.): See: http://sio.ucsd.edu/supp_groups/shipsked/2000/revelle.sched00.html Shipping Details (Approx.Dates,etc.): Dennis Long to provide information. Equipment is on board the REVELLE. AIR: All equipment is to be returned clean and assembled. Overboard equipment must be rinsed with fresh water and dried. __________________________________________________________________________ Taken by: W. Sutherland Request by: K. Sanborn, 11 January 2000 Copies to: Sutherland/Ayers/Digre/Asch(Administration), RTW/Rusk(Marine Tech), Masten(Chemistry), Patrick(Thermometry, CTD Calibs), Long(Logistics), Mattson/Heckman(Electronics), Swift(Science), Requestor/PI, Resident Technicians (restech@sdsioa.ucsd.edu), Ship Scheduling (shipsked@ucsd.edu) STS/SEG participants: Earl Heckman ** Notify Earl Heckman or Kristin Sanborn of additions or changes for CTD Operations. internet: ksanborn@ucsd.edu Telephone: (858) 534-1903 eheckman@ucsd.edu (858) 534-1907 Equipment has been received. |Equipment has been returned. |(Please annotate equipment |condition) | | | X_________________________ |X_________________________________ Signature of Requestor/PI |Signature of ODF technician
X-Sender: restech/sdsioa.ucsd.edu@127.0.0.1 Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 14:50:00 -0800 To: ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil, jlynch@whoi.edu, capt@mpl.ucsd.edu From: Resident Technicians <restech@sdsioa.ucsd.edu> Subject: CTD Tow-yo's Cc: woodys@odf.ucsd.edu, rmoe@ucsd.edu, shipsked@ucsd.edu, carl@odf.ucsd.edu Hello Dr. Ramp, Here are some tow-yo options and points to consider: 1. Tow-yo using the ctd package off the rosette. a. Time required to remove ctd and cable from Rosette and re-rig for towing. b. Time required to return ctd to rosette for bottle casts? c. Is this a one-time switch or a repeated event? d. Extra time needed for towing slowly...1-2 knots. 2. Tow-yo using spare ctd off the sea-mac winch (also through boom). a. 2nd computer for 2nd ctd? Or switching leads at the junction box to utilize the same computer? b. Depth restriction on tow-yos - only 300m of wire on the seamac. c. Towing slowly...1-2 knots d. Adds a third wire operation from the boom 3. Tow-yo using spare ctd off spare .322 winch on the fantail through the A-frame (this winch is currently being carried by the ship on the 01 deck). a. Is there room on fantail? Consider seismic gear and companion winch, and mooring gear. b. Same issue of multiple ctd computers vs. alternate routing c. Towing slowly...1-2 knots Keep in mind that every option that involves switching wires, cables, or computers also opens opportunities for errors and subsequent problem-solving time. Please do not hesitate to call if you would like to discuss any of these options in more detail. Tammy
Reply-To: <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> From: "Steven Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> To: "Sutherland, Woody" <woodys@odf.ucsd.edu>, <tbaiz@ucsd.edu>, <rmoe@ucsd.edu> Cc: "Lynch,J" <jlynch@whoi.edu>, "Dufour, Rose" <shipsked@ucsd.edu>, "Althouse, Tom" <capt@mpl.ucsd.edu> Subject: CTD to-yos? Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 13:47:02 -0800 X-Priority: 3 All, As our scientific discussions continue on, there seems to be a need for some short, high-resolution CTD transects across the shelf in the region of greatest interest to the acousticians. Such transects are best made by a towed body such as seasoar, but we won't have one on this cruise. What are the options for "to-yo" CTD casts? Can we remove all the bottles, add some extra weight, and slowly tow the CTD? Do you perhaps have a V-fin or some other arrangement on board for this? Feedback needed, Thanks, Steve
Reply-To: <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> From: "Steven Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> Subject: Getting off the REVELLE Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 12:53:06 -0800 X-Priority: 3 PLEASE PASS ALSO TO DR. LIXIN WU. I DO NOT HAVE HIS EMAIL ADDRESS. Dear Sirs: I am writing to clarify the situation with regard to getting cruise participants from the People's Republic of China (Drs. Yan and Wu) off the U.S. research vessel R/V ROGER REVELLE at the end of the April 1 to May 6, 2000 ASIAEX cruise. 1. BEST WAY. The best way is to get visas for Taiwan and disembark in Kaohsiung along with everyone else. I realize time is short, but if you can possibly work together and make this happen, it will be a big help to everyone. 2. NOT POSSIBLE. We cannot sign Drs. Yan and Wu on board as crew members. The law is very strict about this. They do not hold merchant marine papers and do not fit any of the categories for crew members. 3. ALTERNATIVE. If the visas are not possible, then we will make a port stop in Hong Kong and you can get off there. This stop will be at the end of the cruise, immediately before Kaohsiung. So, we will complete the work, steam to Hong Kong and let Drs. Yan and Wu off, then steam directly to Kaohsiung and let everyone else off and off-load the ship. We have already made arrangements in Kaohsiung to ship all the equipment back to the United States. We prefer NOT to stop in Hong Kong, because it costs us 2 days of ship research time and approximately $40,000 US to do this. So, please keep trying to get visas for Taiwan. We will make the port stop in Hong Kong only if there is no other way. Don't worry, we will get you off the ship one way or another! We look forward to having you on board and working with you during the cruise. Very best regards, Steve Ramp
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 12:09:18 -0500 From: Jim Lynch <jlynch@whoi.edu> Organization: WHOI X-Accept-Language: en To: shipsked@ucsd.edu, jlynch@whoi.edu Subject: [Fwd: ] Dear Rose, Here is the cruise plan and track for the ECS/SCS cruises. You said (a ways back) that you needed this. Looks like it might have to be updated again to include a Hong Kong jaunt! Best, Jim Lynch --------------------------------------------------------- Brief Cruise Plan for ECS/SCS 2000 April 2000 ECS/SCS ASIAEX Cruise of R/V Revelle April 1 - Departure scheduled for 1600 hours local, Pier 8, Pusan, ROK. Three PRC scientists will be picked up locally by means TBD right after departure. Ship will then head directly for ECS operational area. April 3 ö Arrive ECS operational area, nominal coordinate 30N, 126E. Dr. Bartek will conduct seismic profiling operations and Dr. Steve Ramp will conduct hydrography operations in that area until April 12. April 12 - We will depart the ECS site at a time TBD on the 12th, and head for the SCS operations site. April 14 ö Arrive SCS operational area, nominal coordinate 22N, 118E. Dr. Lynch will deploy six moorings at the site (~1.5 days), followed by a hydrographic survey by Dr. Ramp (3 days). If time and conditions allow, we will then follow soliton trains for ~1/2 day. Next will come seismic profiling operations by Dr. Bartek. These will proceed until ~May 2-3, at which point we will retieve the six moorings (~1.5 days). On May 5, we will begin the 0.6 day steam to port in Kaoshiung, Taiwan. May 6 ö Arrive in Kaoshiung, Taiwan (~0800 ??), begin offloading equipment. Open house aboard Revelle has been suggested by Taiwanese investigators, is presently being discussed. May 7 ö Finish offloading.
X-Sender: capt@murex.ucsd.edu Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 14:50:55 -0800 To: knox@sio.ucsd.edu From: Thomas Althouse <capt@mpl.ucsd.edu> Subject: E-mail to Ramp re: PRC nationals Cc: shipsked@ucsd.edu After review of all factors surrounding the landing of PRC members of the ASIAEX Science Party as 'crew members' in Kaohsiung, I feel that some other option must be pursued. The definition of 'crew member' in 46 CFR specifically excludes Science Personnel on oceanographic research vessels. 46 CFR Subchapter U further states, in part, that scientific personnel on oceanographic research vessels shall not be considered seamen. I believe we would be taking a significant risk to call the PRC personnel 'crew members' and handling them under international immigration procedures specifically established for ships operating personnel. I have discussed this matter with the UNOLS Legal Advisor, Mr. Dennis Nixon, and he concurs. I have looked at several options to handle the situation. Unfortunately, all have drawbacks as could be inspected. Option I - PRC individuals obtain Taiwan visas. This, of course, is what raised the problem. All indications that I have received are that the limited time frame available until the scheduled start of the cruise would prevent accomplishment of this. While I do not know that visas cannot be obtained, my experience would indicate that if not impossible it would be very difficult. Option II - Conduct a brief stop in PRC to disembark PRC nationals. The only two viable ports for this option appear to be Hong Kong and Shantou. I have attached a chartlet displaying the geography and distances to the three ports involved. My personal preference would be to make a brief stop at Hong Kong, anchor or lie to while officials board by boat, accomplish necessary clearances and then disembark the two PRC nationals. Hong Kong is a large international port accustomed to handling ships of all nations. It is easy to navigate and I believe that things would happen most rapidly there. Since I do not know where ASIAEX work will end, I have to pick a point and calculate times and distances from that position. I picked a straight shot to Hong Kong from the western boundary of the work area. This is a transit of 151 nm or just under 13 hours. The distance from Hong Kong to Kaohsiung is 328 nm or 27 hours for a total of 40 hours transit plus time to complete clearances and transfers. Shantou is a much smaller port with limited depth. My information indicates 6 meters in the channel and only two berths where REVELLE could lie. Again we could try the anchor or lie to plan but I am fairly sure that things would not go as smoothly as they would at Hong Kong. With lack of any other information, I chose the NW corner of the work area to calculate distances and times for this option. Then distance to Shantou is 57 nm or just over 4 hours. The distance form there to Kaohsiung is 197 nm or 16.5 hours for a total of about 20 hours. While transit time is 50 percent of the Hong Kong option, I have no guess as to the time entry; transfer and departure procedures will take. Option III - Divert to Naha during transit to Honolulu for transfer of PRC personnel. Kaohsiung to Honolulu is 4,539 nm. Kaohsiung to Naha to Honolulu is 4,607 nm, an additional 68 nm or about 6 hours. The disadvantages with this option are that the PRC personnel would have to stay aboard during the port call in Kaohsiung and there may be Japanese visa considerations which could cause complications. This option would not impact science time but would affect the subsequent transit. Options II and III have impact on MARFAC budgets due to the additional port costs involved in the additional port stop. In order to have arrangements in place, I will need to know which option will be pursued. Please advise. Thanks Captain Tom Althouse Marine Superintendent
X-Sender: bartek@pop.unc.edu Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 13:32:18 -0500 To: ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil, ramp@atlantis.oc.nps.navy.mil From: Lou Bartek <bartek@email.unc.edu> Subject: Re: AsiaEX estimates Cc: shipsked@ucsd.edu, orr@wave31i.nrl.navy.mil, simmenj@onr.navy.mil, kravitj@onr.navy.mil, jlynch@whoi.edu, pfeifft@onr.navy.mil, goodmal@onr.navy.mil, murrays@onr.navy.mil Steve, This is a message that you sent out Jan. 28 stating that the proposed tech situation "sounds good". If you look down at the portion of Woody Sutherland's message which is part of your message (at the bottom of this message) and pasted below you can see that the recommendation was to provide the tech with the ability to assist with seismic and coring operations. The justification was due to the small size of the science party and the nature of the work we were going to do in the ECS survey. This proposal appears to have been approved for the ECS survey. Size of the science party is no longer an issue, but as I have pointed out in the text below, the change in the schedule does have an important impact on our logistics plan for setting up our profiling operation and the availability of some important folks who work with me to get it off of the ground. As the initial program stood, we would have basically have had all the shake-down and set-up worked out with days leading up to the ECS survey and during it, and setting up for the SCS survey would have been a matter of simply going back to an established configuration. With the new situation, we have two days to do the things we would have gotten done with the ship in port prior to the ECS cruise with my top folks involved. So as described below, I think we should have somebody like Seth Mogk (if that is the person who had been tapped to work with us in the ECS), who knows the Revelle geophysical systems, sail with us because it will facilitate safe efficient set-up and operation. Since there is no longer an ECS survey there is no longer cost associated with sailing a CTD tech in the ECS for 16 days (the original plan) or a Resident Tech for that interval as well so we should be able to afford this technical person with the geophysical background on the Revelle on the new SCS survey. I discussed this issue with Jeff Simmen this morning and he thinks it is a good idea. You may want to run this by him yourself for the details. My description of the needs described earlier follows; Lou The cancelation of the ECS cruise has had some impact on my technical support for our data acquisition efforts. In the big rush to get our stuff in the container and out the ship we purchased some raw materials from some vendors and planned to put them together ourselves with the assistance of techs. in Pusan. I had a very experienced tech coming out to assist us with setting up on the ship (but not sailing with us) and a second slightly less experienced tech. who would sail with us. As you know we also got approval to have the Scripps Geophys./Coring Tech. sail with us during the ECS cruise as well. The new schedule creates a few new problems for us with our tech support and preparation. First, their is a possibility that my most experienced tech may not get out to the help set-up for the April 1 sail date. This was not an issue before, because we would have already have gone through a set-up with him on a new vessel for the ECS cruise in early March, so his presence would not have been needed in April. Since he will not be there I feel that for safety reasons that it is very important that we sail with the Scripps Geophys./Coring Tech. along with the other techs. that were agreed upon for he SCS cruise. We only have two days to set-up prior to the survey and having the Scripps tech. who is familiar with the Revelle, its systems, compressors, manifolds is important to safe and successful data acquisition given the impact that the change in schedules is going to have on availablity of my personnel. Please let me know what we are going to do to deal with this isssue as soon as possible. \ Woody Sutherland's Message "Following are cost estimates for the Bartek and Lynch AsiaEX cruises >>>scheduled on REVELLE. These are based on the pre-sail conference call and >>>email correspondence. >>> >>>We proposed to send 2 additional STS technicians on the Bartek cruise. We >>>have selected individuals with a high degree of cross training to fulfill >>>multiple functions. One will be responsible for CTD operations and general >>>electronics support. The other will have the ability to assist with >seismic >>>and coring operations. The need for two additional STS technicians is >>>supported by the small size of the scientific party." >X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 1.3 >Reply-To: "Steven R. Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> >From: "Steven R. Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> >To: "Pfeiffer, Timothy" <Timothy_Pfeiffer@onr.navy.mil> >Cc: "Jeff Simmen" <simmenj@onr.navy.mil>, "Beverly Kuhn" <kuhnb@onr.navy.mil>, > "Ching-Sang Chiu" <chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil>, > "Lou Bartek" <bartek@email.unc.edu>, "James Lynch" <jlynch@whoi.edu> >Subject: Re: AsiaEX estimates >Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 08:23:38 -0800 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >X-Priority: 3 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 > >Hi Tim, > > Sounds good. Yes, we will be coring on the second leg. > >Best, >Steve > >-----Original Message----- >From: Pfeiffer, Timothy <Timothy_Pfeiffer@onr.navy.mil> >To: 'Steven R. Ramp' <ramp> >Date: Friday, January 28, 2000 6:39 AM >Subject: RE: AsiaEX estimates > > >>Yes, Woody has mentioned this. We'll fund operation of the SeaBeam for >>both legs and consider cancelling the second if the first wasn't productive. >>To clarify, according to the plan below we're not funding the SeaBeam >>processing tech, just basic operation of the system. The resident, ctd, >>and computer techs who will be aboard are qualified to operate the system and >>addition of the processing tech would not enhance the quality of the data >>gathered. The seabeam tech, if aboard, would concentrate on processing the >>data, producing finished gridded maps to the specifications required for >>your analysis. I see operation of the system as definitely a facilities >>responsiblity but the post processing and production of the final product >>is, I believe, a project responsibility. >> >>Will you be coring on the second leg also? Even if the SeaBeam isn't up to >>the level necessary for detailed analysis it might well be useful in >>conjunction with the coring. >> >>Regards, Tim >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Steven R. Ramp [mailto:ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil] >>Sent: Friday, January 28, 2000 2:15 AM >>To: Pfeiffer, Timothy; 'Woody Sutherland'; >>ramp@atlantis.oc.nps.navy.mil; bartek@mailserv0.isis.unc.edu; >>jlynch@whoi.edu >>Cc: shipsked@sio.ucsd.edu >>Subject: Re: AsiaEX estimates >> >> >>Hi Tim, >> >> This looks great, thanks. But....see also the message I am about to >>forward to you from Marshall Orr. He may not want the seabeam tech if the >>think just isn't working. Please contact him directly on this subject. >> >>Thanks again, >>Steve >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Pfeiffer, Timothy <Timothy_Pfeiffer@onr.navy.mil> >>To: 'Woody Sutherland' <woodys@odf.ucsd.edu>; Pfeiffer, Timothy >><Timothy_Pfeiffer@onr.navy.mil>; ramp <ramp>; bartek@mailserv0.isis.unc.edu >><bartek@mailserv0.isis.unc.edu>; jlynch@whoi.edu <jlynch@whoi.edu> >>Cc: shipsked@sio.ucsd.edu <shipsked@sio.ucsd.edu> >>Date: Thursday, January 27, 2000 7:05 AM >>Subject: RE: AsiaEX estimates >> >> >>>The last thing I did before the snow hit was to talk with Woody about the >>>tech support outlined in his two attachements. I feel that this level of >>>support does fall within the realm of standard services that RF supports >>>and cost shares. In summary, there will be a total of four techs on the >>>Bartek leg and three techs on the Lynch leg. Woody and I will continue to work >>>on the details of the budget necessary to bring the original request up to >>>this level of support. >>>Regards, Tim >>> >>> >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Woody Sutherland [mailto:woodys@odf.ucsd.edu] >>>Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 7:00 PM >>>To: timothy_pfeiffer@onr.navy.mil; ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil; >>>bartek@mailserv0.isis.unc.edu; jlynch@whoi.edu >>>Cc: woodys@odf.ucsd.edu; shipsked@sio.ucsd.edu >>>Subject: AsiaEX estimates >>> >>> >>>Following are cost estimates for the Bartek and Lynch AsiaEX cruises >>>scheduled on REVELLE. These are based on the pre-sail conference call and >>>email correspondence. >>> >>>We proposed to send 2 additional STS technicians on the Bartek cruise. We >>>have selected individuals with a high degree of cross training to fulfill >>>multiple functions. One will be responsible for CTD operations and general >>>electronics support. The other will have the ability to assist with >seismic >>>and coring operations. The need for two additional STS technicians is >>>supported by the small size of the scientific party. >>> >>>For a number of reasons only one additional STS technician is proposed for >>>the Lynch cruise: >>> i) larger scientific party >>> ii) the same equipment will be used as on the Bartek cruise >>> iii) the scientific party will have gained experience with this >>>equipment >>> >>>Since these cruises are rapidly approaching, I would appreciate hearing >>>funding decisions as soon as possible. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Woody Sutherland >>>SIO/STS
From: "(OES) Cocke, William T" <CockeWT@state.gov> To: "'shipsked@ucsd.edu'" <shipsked@ucsd.edu> Subject: PRC Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 10:01:29 -0500 Hi, Rose/Liz. This is the final story on PRC. I have said this from the beginning, and Bob Smith and our legal staff agree: PRC claims the areas of both of the proposed research areas, and without their approval you cannot conduct research in those areas. You will remember our policy of disputed claims: we must get clearance from all the claimants before research can be conducted. I regret this, but it is not my decision. Tom
Reply-To: <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> From: "Steven R. Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> To: "Lynch,J" <jlynch@whoi.edu>, "Bartek Lou" <bartek@email.unc.edu> Subject: ASIAEX Cruise Dates Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 14:04:57 -0800 X-Priority: 3 All, After much negotiation and excellent cooperation by all concerned, we have reached agreement on some new dates for the ASIAEX East and South China Sea cruises on the R/V ROGER REVELLE. These changes were necessitated by our inability to operate within the PRC Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) until after April 1, 2000. The dates of course still depend on getting all the necessary final approvals from the bordering nations. These approvals, to the best of my knowledge, are proceeding smoothly at this time. The cruise dates will now be as follows: 2-13 March 2000: Chief Scientist: Dr. Lou Bartek Ports: Pusan to Pusan Operations: This cruise will conduct bottom surveys in the part of the ASIAEX ECS study region outside the PRC EEZ. 16-31 March 2000: A separate cruise not related to ASIAEX. 4 April - 6 May 2000: ECS and SCS cruise: Chief Scientist: Dr. Jim Lynch Ports: Pusan to Kaohsiung Operations: This cruise will conduct bottom surveys in the PRC part of the ECS study region, then proceed to the SCS to conduct bottom and water column surveys there. For further cruise details, please contact me or the Chief Scientists. Best regards, Steve Ramp
Reply-To: <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> From: "Steven R. Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> To: "Dufour, Rose" <shipsked@ucsd.edu>, "Perkins, Hank" <hperkins@nrlssc.navy.mil>, "Lynch,J" <jlynch@whoi.edu>, "Bartek Lou" <bartek@email.unc.edu> Cc: "Tim Pfeiffer" <pfeifft@onr.navy.mil>, "Chiu,C-S" <chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil>, "Kuhn, Beverly" <kuhnb@onr.navy.mil>, "Simmen, Jeffrey" <simmenj@onr.navy.mil> Subject: REVELLE CRUISE DATES Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:28:14 -0800 X-Priority: 3 All, Per all your voice mails, I am trying to speak with all the players today to make sure the dates are ok before we announce a change. The latest dates are (unchanged from late last week): Bartek: March 2-13 Perkins: March 16-31 Lynch: 4 April to 6 May Please confirm, prefearably by phone but I'll settle for e-mail, that these are ok. Thanks, Steve Prof. Steven R. Ramp Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Ra Naval Postgraduate School 833 Dyer Road Monterey, CA 93943-5122 ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil Phone 831 656 2201 Fax 831 656 2712
Reply-To: "Steven R. Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> From: "Steven R. Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> To: "Tim Pfeiffer" <pfeifft@onr.navy.mil>, "Rose Dufour" <shipsked@ucsd.edu>, "Woody Sutherland" <woodys@odf.ucsd.edu>, "Jeff Simmen" <simmenj@onr.navy.mil>, "Beverly Kuhn" <kuhnb@onr.navy.mil>, "Louis Goodman" <goodmal@onr.navy.mil>, "Murray, Stephen P." <MURRAYS@onr.navy.mil>, "James Lynch" <jlynch@whoi.edu>, "Lou Bartek" <bartek@email.unc.edu>, "Hank Perkins" <hperkins@nrlssc.navy.mil> Subject: Asian Seas Scheduling Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:03:39 -0800 X-Priority: 3 All, This is getting to be an ever larger and more confusing situation. At least three people have three different ideas of what is supposed to happen here. I did not call Rose because I didnāt know what to tell her until communicating with Jeff. It was too late to call him in Boston. Some new scenarios have emerged due to 5 extra days which have just become available at the end of the cruise. 1. Favored by Lou B. and lobbied to Rose: Move the whole thing back five days, which also moves Hankās cruise back where it was. This is to allow more time to ship stuff. Hank has just finished rearranging everything for the new time. So now weāre going to ask him to move it all back?? We canāt keep jerking everyone around like this. 2. Favored by me. Keep Hankās cruise at its new (earlier) position. Start Louās cruise two days later. Stretch Jimās cruise by two days at the end. (to allow more time to operate in PRC waters). Yes, I think two days is enough. 3. Suggested by Jeff. Drop the first cruise altogether. Keep Hankās cruise at its new (earlier) position. Add all five days to the end of the Lynch cruise. Do the whole thing in one big cruise. (which would at this point be extended by 10 full days.) There are several reasons not to drop the first cruise. PRC has never said they would allow Korean and Japanese riders into their EEZ. Japan has questioned having PRC riders in their EEZ. With two cruises, we eliminate this problem, with no PRC on the first cruise and no Koreans and Janpanese on the second. Second, dropping the first cruise puts a pretty big hole in the REVELLE schedule. Third, the second cruise is getting mighty long already. It is under plan two already April 2 to May 3, over a month. This is not just steaming across the ocean doing CTDs. This is constantly worrying about the bottom, working with heavy gear, deploying and recovering heavy gear, interfacing with foreigners, etc. Re shipping, Lou just needs to get stuff out as soon as the snow melts. If itās not there, weāll deal with it. I got a message saying the storage problem between cruises had been solved, but apparently nobody every spoke to Hank about this. Please remind us of how this is supposed to happen. To help, Hank has a 20-foot container on the pier which Lou can put stuff in between cruises. This is at no cost as long as they donāt decide they need the space and put them into bonded storage. They have been there for 18 months now with lots of ships coming and going. Hank thinks they are part of the landscape now and this wonāt happen. NOTE: That I learned today from Lynne Talley that PRC and Russian people cannot board the vessel at the Navy pier in Pusan. (Not allowed on the base by the US). No Russians, but we will have to deal with this for the PRC folks. I understand the crew wasnāt too wild about the pier they used for Lynneās cruise to board the Russians as it was in the middle of nowhere. So, we need to figure out how to get the PRC folks on board. This is all I can think of now. Everyone please weigh in today via email so we can settle this issue. When the dust clears, I will try to reach Jeff and Rose by phone. Regards, Steve Prof. Steven R. Ramp Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Ra Naval Postgraduate School 833 Dyer Road Monterey, CA 93943 Tel: 831 656 2201 Fax: 831 656 2712 e-mail: ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil
X-Sender: ebrenner@siomail Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:33:21 -0800 To: bartek@email.unc.edu From: Elizabeth Brenner <shipsked@ucsd.edu> Subject: Fwd: Re: ASIAEX Cc: shipsked@ucsd.edu Lou- please find one scenario. As discussed last night, this version is not very promising as it puts Jeff Gee at sea at the same time he is on Atlantis with Donna Blackman. He is not in today but is willing to speak to us about it on Monday. Even though this doesn't seem to be the preferred version of Ramp and co. we should pursue, as it loosens up 5 days at the beginning of the year. Rose will be taking to Jeff Gee on Monday. In a separate email I'm sending out a change to the current schedule..the five day shortening of your cruise etc. I will contact the HOME people about moving a couple of days later, but unfortunately this also includes asking Wecoma to delay sailing, as this is a two ship operation. We'll be in touch. Liz Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:15:33 -0800 To: "Steven R. Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> From: Elizabeth Brenner <shipsked@ucsd.edu> Subject: Re: ASIAEX Cc: shipsked@ucsd.edu Bcc: X-Attachments: Steve, Here is an example of what the schedule might look like, given all parties agree to move. Based on loose calculations the total amount of days is reduced to 43. 2 days port savings 4 days transit savings. Any discrepancies in these calculations will have to be adjusted up--Perkins would have to go even earlier. Please call me so that we can discuss further. I tried reaching you, your line was busy. Liz R/V Roger Revelle LAST UPDATE: January 20, 2000 CRUISE MAP INDEX/AREA/ P.I./INSTITUTION/ PORTS DAYS/AGENCY/ DATES PURPOSE PROPOSAL NO. STATUS/CLEARANCE 01 Jan NP7/in port n.a.// Sasebo 12/Non-Op 12 Jan Sasebo 12 Jan NP7/transit n.a.// Sasebo 01/ONR/F 13 Jan Pusan 1/Non-op 14 15 16 Jan NP7/Sea of Japan/ Lee/Brink/Jones/ Pusan 18/ONR/F 05 Feb N00014-98-1-0200 Pusan 05/ONR/F 6 Japan, S.Korea, Russia 07 Feb In Port Pusan 31/Non-op 08 Mar Pusan 08 09 Mar NP7/Korea-Tsushima Str. Perkins, H./NRL/ Pusan 18/NRL/F 24 Mar Acoustic Laboratory Pusan Japan, S.Korea 25 26,27 28 Mar NP7-IN2/ECS Bartek, L./UNC/ Pusan 43/ONR/F 05 May ASIAEX Lynch, J./WHOI/ Kao-hsiung Kang, Taiwan 06,07 China, Taiwan, Japan 08 May NP10-NP12/transit n.a. Kao-hsiung Kang 17/ONR/F 23 May Honolulu [cross date-line-gain a day] 24,25,26 27 May NP12-NP9/HI-CA transect/Popp, B.N./UH/ Honolulu 39/NSF/F 01 Ju1 CTD-Rosette OCE98-10640 San Diego Mexico 10 Jul NP12/Off San Diego/ Becker, K./RSMAS/ San Diego 05/NSF/ODP/F 14 Jul Borehole inst. testing OCE98-19316 San Diego 16 Jul NP6/48-10N,127-10W/ Spiess, F./SIO/ San Diego 11/NSF/F Convergence OCE97-30870 at sea Canada (intermediate port stop, Astoria 7/22) NP6-NP9/44.6N, 124W Spiess, F./SIO/ at sea 22/NSF/F 16 Aug Juan de Fuca Geodesy OCE99-07247 Astoria 17 18 Aug NP12/Off Hawaii/ transit// Astoria 09/NSF/F 26 Aug Equipment testing Honolulu 27,28 29 Aug NP12/Off Hawaii/ Rudnick, D./SIO/ Honolulu 36/NSF/F 29 Sep HOME Project OCE98-19521 Honolulu 30,01 2,3 04 Oct NP12/Off Hawaii/ Gregg, M./UW/ Honolulu 38/NSF/F 06 Nov HOME Project OCE98-18693 Honolulu 7,8 9,10 11 Nov NP12/Off Hawaii/ Hildebrand, J./SIO/ Honolulu 31/NSF/F 07 Dec Sea Floor Geodesy OCE98-19078 Honolulu 8,9 10 Dec NP12/Off Hawaii/ Gee, J./SIO/ Honolulu 13/NSF/F 22 Dec Equipment testing San Diego 23 Dec NP9/San Diego n.a. San Diego 35/Non-op 26 Jan Proposed multibeam installation SIMRAD EM-120 San Diego 29 Jan NP13/1oN, 84oW/ Becker, K./RSMAS/ San Diego 27/NSF/ODP/F 22 Feb Borehole instrumentation OCE98-19316 Puerto Caldera 23,24 (~40 days re-submit work for Lonsdale, Karsten, or Batiza) xx, xx xx Mar SP3A/Off Peru/ Chadwell, D./SIO/ Puerto Caldera 35/NSF/F xx Apr Marine Geophysics OCE Callao 9,10 xx xx Apr NP13/9-10N,104W/ Schouten, H./WHOI/ TBD 36/NSF/F xx May Jason, DSL120 TBD xx,xx
X-Sender: bartek@pop.unc.edu (Unverified) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 10:30:54 -0500 To: "Marshall Orr" <orr@wave31i.nrl.navy.mil> From: Lou Bartek <bartek@email.unc.edu> Subject: RE: Potential Re-Sched. of ECS survey Cc: ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil, simmenj@onr.navy.mil, capt@mpl.ucsd.edu, shipsked@ucsd.edu, jlynch@whoi.edu Marshall, Thank you for the response. I guess the issue is that most of the area that is outside PRC EEZ and in the Japanese EEZ is in deeper water than people have indicated that they want to work in the ECS. So we have to sort that situation out. In conversations with the Scripps folks they have made it clear that their hull mounted SeaBeam Swath Mapping system is designed for deep water use and will give us little useful data on the shelf and upper slope (unless of course we are doing profiles that are a little more than a ship's width apart - I am exaggerating here, but you get the point). It may be a lot of money spent with litte return on the investment. Maybe you and Oerst should take this up with Steve Ramp. Lou >Lou, > >Following sentence is extracted from an earlier Steve Ramp message and >should be pointed out to Perkins. > >switching the Perkins cruise and >the Bartek cruise so that we could still complete the ECS cruise as planned. >We would survey everything outside the PRC in the time leading up to 1 >April, then cross into PRC waters and do the rest of it. > >Marshall > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lou Bartek [mailto:bartek@email.unc.edu] >Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 8:53 PM >To: ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil >Cc: orr; Jim@vaquero.whoi.edu; SIMMENJ@onr.navy.mil; kravitj@onr.navy.mil; >rose@siomail.ucsd.edu; capt@mpl.ucsd.edu; shipsked@ucsd.edu >Subject: Potential Re-Sched. of ECS survey > >Steve, > Rose from Scripps Ship Scheduling called me tonight with some ideas >on rescheduling the ECS survey after the SCS survey. She has talked with >Perkins and he does not see what we gain by swapping with him because his >time is March 18-April 3 (I believe). Rose is briefing Elizabeth Brenner >(the other ship schedule person at Scripps) because Rose will not be in the >office tomorrow. Can we arrange some sort of conference call? What time >is good for you and at what telephone number can you be reached? As I >mentioned in my last message, my back is against the wall on some freight >matters so decisions need to made this week. Looking forward to hearing >from you. By the way we may want to talk briefly prior to the conference >call to discuss the concerns that I have heard voiced by the acousticians >about the importance of the time that we conduct the survey as well (we may >not be able to have our cake and eat it too here). I have taken a pretty >good hit with the flu so I may be at home tomorrow but do not hesitate to >contact me at my home number which is (919) 960-4354 and the office number >is (919) 962-0687. > > Lou > >Dr. Louis Bartek >Department of Geological Sciences >University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill >CB# 3315, Mitchell Hall >Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3315 > >Tel. Office (919) 962-0687 Home (919) 960-4354 >Fax. (919) 966-4519 >email bartek@email.unc.edu
Reply-To: "Steven R. Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> From: "Steven R. Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> To: "Eric Hartwig" <hartwig@utopia.nrl.navy.mil>, "Steve Payne" <paynes@nrlssc.navy.mil>, "Hank Perkins" <hperkins@nrlssc.navy.mil> Cc: "Jeff Simmen" <simmenj@onr.navy.mil>, "Beverly Kuhn" <kuhnb@onr.navy.mil>, "Ching-Sang Chiu" <chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil>, "Tim Pfeiffer" <pfeifft@onr.navy.mil>, "Thomas Althouse" <capt@mpl.ucsd.edu>, "Rose Dufour" <shipsked@ucsd.edu>, "Lou Bartek" <bartek@email.unc.edu>, "James Lynch" <jlynch@whoi.edu>, "William T Cocke" <CockeWT@state.gov>, "Orr, Marshall" <orr@wave31i.nrl.navy.mil>, "Ed Franchi" <nrl7100@ccsalpha3.nrl.navy.mil>, "Louis Goodman" <goodmal@onr.navy.mil>, "Murray, Stephen P." <MURRAYS@onr.navy.mil>, "Frank Herr" <herrf@onr.navy.mil> Subject: Asian Seas Cruise Problems Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 09:35:03 -0800 X-Priority: 3 January 19, 2000 All, Due to circumstances beyond our control, the Peopleās Republic of China (PRC) will not allow the R/V ROGER REVELLE to operate in their waters until after April 1, 2000. This presents us with a serious problem, as one of our joint cruises to the East China Sea (ECS) is presently scheduled for February 28 ö March 16, 2000. Things are ok for the South China Sea (SCS) cruise, presently scheduled for April 7 ö May 1, 2000. The Chief Scientist on the ECS cruise is Lou Bartek of the University of North Carolina. The Chief Scientist on the SCS cruise is Jim Lynch of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. These cruises set the stage for even larger programs during the spring of 2001. We cannot conduct the 2001 cruises unless the G&G surveys are successfully conducted during 2000. We have tried every diplomatic avenue we know and presently see it as unlikely that the PRC will change their minds and let us in earlier. Their bureaucracy simply wonāt allow this. However, this joint project with the PRC has been four years in the making, and remains very high in importance and visibility to ONR. Commitments have been made to Korea and Japan that we donāt want to back out of. We would like to explore everything possible to preserve the health of this project. Dr. Henry Perkins of NRL is the Chief Scientist for a cruise in between these two cruises, presently scheduled for 19 March ö 3 April 2000. This cruise is to recover an array of bottom mounted ADCPs in the Tsushima Straits. I appreciate that Hank wants the longest possible time series, but would like to explore the possibility of switching the Perkins cruise and the Bartek cruise so that we could still complete the ECS cruise as planned. We would survey everything outside the PRC in the time leading up to 1 April, then cross into PRC waters and do the rest of it. All of Bartekās G&G gear goes on both of our cruises: This would therefore also save the Navy about $20,000 by not having to off-load and re-load the ship and keep everything in bonded storage in Pusan in between. I have copied many people on this message, because to me this has now become a Navy issue, rather than the preferences of individual projects, and we all need to step back and look at the big picture. I understand there is some history to this issue, which I am not completely up to date on due to the unfortunate death of my immediate predecessor in this position. Time is very short and it is difficult to make changes, especially moving a cruise forward in time. Iāve thought hard about it however and I cannot see a better solution at this time, so I would like to revisit this alternative again. When the present schedule was laid out, it was of course assumed we would be allowed in when we wanted. This unfortunately has not panned out. All major international projects are subject to these kinds of unexpected problems, and we need to be flexible to overcome them. The bottom line question then is simple: Can we switch these two cruises? Everyone involved in the ASIAEX (Asian Seas Internatational Acoustics Experiment) project would be most appreciative if NRL could accommodate this request. We need to decide by the end of this week. Thank you very much for giving this your full consideration. Best regards, Steve Ramp ASIAEX International Scientific Coordinator Prof. Steven R. Ramp Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Ra Naval Postgraduate School 833 Dyer Road Monterey, CA 93943 Tel: 831 656 2201 Fax: 831 656 2712 e-mail: ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil
X-Sender: ebrenner@siomail Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 10:26:13 -0800 To: CockeWT@state.gov From: Elizabeth Brenner <shipsked@ucsd.edu> Subject: Fwd: Re: CTD on ASIAEX Cc: shipsked@ucsd.edu, rknox@ucsd.edu, capt@mpl.ucsd.edu, woodys@odf.ucsd.edu I had a feeling this would happen--back in August and brought it up to many including Bill Hodgkiss. Warren Denner said he would take care of it, apparently nothing happened. I'll be in contact with Lou Bartek after I speak to Tom Cocke. Let's take a deep breath and try to salvage this one. Liz -----Original Message----- From: Lou Bartek <bartek@email.unc.edu> To: ramp <ramp> Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 10:44 PM Subject: CTD on ASIAEX >Steve, > I know that we will take CTD casts at times that we core (roughly >30 times max). However, the rest of the information that is requested is >outside of the realm of my expertise. Can you provide a response and who >is going to QC this stuff on the ship? Also have you gotten a response on >manning the Seabeam system or whether we will have an ET on the ship. The >web page says that the ship says with one, but the guy who represents the >resident techs. says we will not have one. Also the concept of having >this pre-cruise planning meeting at Scripps in nice in theory, but not very >practical at this point for those of us involved in the first survey. It >will tie up 3 days (a day of travel out, another to get back and one for >the meeting) that I need to work on logistics between now and the end of >the month. Perhaps we do some of this via conference call and then do a >follow-up in Feb. > > Lou > >>From ???@??? Tue Jan 11 20:18:14 2000 >>X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 1.3 >>Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 18:37:28 -0800 (PST) >>From: Kristin Sanborn <kris@odf.ucsd.edu> >>Reply-To: Kristin Sanborn <kris@odf.ucsd.edu> >>Subject: CTD on ASIAEX >>To: bartek@email.unc.edu >>Cc: kris@odf.ucsd.edu, woodys@odf.ucsd.edu >>MIME-Version: 1.0 >> >>Dr. Louis Bartek >>Department of Geological Sciences >>University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill >>CB# 3315, Mitchell Hall >>Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3315 >> >>Tel. Office (919) 962-0687 >>Fax. (919) 966-4519 >>email bartek@email.unc.edu >> >>Dear Dr. Bartek: >> >>Woody Sutherland forwarded your message dated 7 January 2000, >>regarding your equipment requirements for your upcoming expedition, Asian >>Sea International Acoustics Experiment, ASIAEX. Our group, >>Shipboard Technical Support, Oceanographic Data Facility, STS/ODF, will be >>providing the Sea-Bird CTD 911 plus and a technician to support the CTD >>operations. >> >>I have reviewed information that is posted on the Scripp's Ship Scheduling web >>page and have a few questions: >>1. How many CTD casts are you planning? >>2. How close to the ocean bottom will you be sampling? >>3. There was no request for a rosette frame or bottles for water samples. >> Is there no plan to take water samples? >> Bottle salinity check samples can validate the CTD salinity. >>4. How accurate do you need the data? >> >>The Sea-Bird CTD 911plus is currently on the Revelle. It is equipped with: >>Dual Temperature and conductivity sensors. Do you need any other parameters? >>I have also visited www.arl.nus.edu.sg/asiaex site. But, I did not readily >>find the CTD sampling stategy. >>We use the Sea-Bird's Windows version of SEASAVE for data acquisition, >>which can provide a variety of real-time plotting capability. >>We use Sea-Bird's data processing programs which also provide plots and >>tabular data. The sensors have been recently calibrated by Sea-Bird. The data >>will be provided to you at the end of the expedition >>along with the programs. This data can be given to you on CD's. >> >>We have not chosen a technician who will be accompanying you on your >>expedition. We will provide the name as soon as the decision is made. >> >>Your response to these questions is necessary to help determine the supplies >>that need to be shipped to the Revelle and if there are any peripherals that >>may be necessary. >> >>Kristin >> >> >>-- >>Kristin M. Sanborn | Phone: (858) 534-1903 >>Oceanographic Data Facility | >>Scripps Institution of Oceanography | Fax: (858) 534-7383 >>University of California San Diego (UCSD)| Email:ksanborn@ucsd.edu >>La Jolla, CA 92093-0214 | or kris@odf.ucsd.edu >>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:41:24 -0800 (PST) From: Woody Sutherland <woodys@odf.ucsd.edu> Reply-To: Woody Sutherland <woodys@odf.ucsd.edu> Subject: Re: AsiaEX cruise requirements To: woodys@odf.ucsd.edu, cpm@mpl.ucsd.edu, kris@odf.ucsd.edu, bob@odf.ucsd.edu, frank@odf.ucsd.edu, doug@odf.ucsd.edu, carl@odf.ucsd.edu, john@odf.ucsd.edu, jswift@odf.ucsd.edu, sms@gdcsun1.ucsd.edu, moe@sdsioa.ucsd.edu, mogk@sdsioa.ucsd.edu, restech@sdsioa.ucsd.edu, shipsked@sio.ucsd.edu, capt@mpl.ucsd.edu Cc: ayers@odf.ucsd.edu, joanne@odf.ucsd.edu ------------- Begin Forwarded Message ------------- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:38:06 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: bartek@pop.unc.edu (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: Woody Sutherland <woodys@odf.ucsd.edu> From: Lou Bartek <bartek@email.unc.edu> Subject: Re: AsiaEX cruise requirements >SIO Shipboard Technical Support Checklist > >Greetings, > >You are currently scheduled as the Principal Investigator for a research >cruise >on a SIO ship in the coming >year. We realize that you have already completed similar forms for UNOLS and >apologize in advance for >duplication of effort caused by this request. However, support requirements >often change over time and/or >change depending upon the assigned ship on which you will work. Please >indicate >the equipment (number >& type, where applicable) and services required for your cruise (including >any >ancillary projects), and >return via email (siosts@odf.ucsd.edu) or fax (858 534-7383) as soon as >possible. > >Thank you, >Woody Sutherland, SIO/STS > > > >MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT & SERVICES > >__1___ 12 kHz pinger > >_____ submersible strobe light > >_____ submersible radio transmitter > >_____ laboratory van > >_____ isotope van > >_____ refrigerated van > >__X___ forklift operation > >_____ diving (in port) > > > >UNDERWAY SURVEY > >__X___ IMET & navigation data > >_____ uncontaminated seawater system > >_____ towed magnetometer (MELVILLE & REVELLE) > >__X___ 3.5 kHz sub-bottom profiler > >__X___ SeaBeam (MELVILLE & REVELLE) > >__?___ onboard SeaBeam data processor (personnel) > >_____ shipboard gravimeter (MELVILLE only) > > > >BOTTOM SAMPLING > >_____ spade box corer > >_____ Soutar corer > >_____ multicorer > >___X__ grab sampler > >_____ rock dredge > >_____ glass (wax) corer > >___X__ gravity corer (length _6 ft. (more if possible____) > >_____ piston corer (length _____) > > >MIDWATER SAMPLING > >__X___ Seabird CTD > >_____ rosette system ( _____12 place, _____ 24 place, _____36 place) > >_____ water bottles (_____ 3 liter, _____5 liter, _____ 10 liter, _____ 30 >liter) > >_____ in-situ transmissometer > >_____ in-situ fluorometer > >_____ in-situ PAR sensor > >_____ in-situ dissolved oxygen sensor > >_____ altimeter > >_____ plankton net > >_____ midwater trawl > >_____ MOCNESS (_____ 1m, _____ dual 1m, _____ 10m) > > > >SEAWATER ANALYSES > >_____ nutrients (_____ at-sea, _____ post-cruise) > >_____ salinity (_____ at-sea, _____ post-cruise) > >_____ dissolved oxygen (_____ at-sea, _____ post-cruise) > > >SEISMIC SURVEY ---I will be bringing out my own guns, streamers, and acquisition systems- -I WILL NEED SHIP'S AIR COMPRESSORS FOR MY GUNS (2,000 psi 15 to 50 cubic inches every 2 to 5 seconds) > >_____ airgun source (_____ number, _____ chamber size) > >_____ water gun source (80 cu. in.) > >_____ G.I. pulse gun > >_____ single channel streamer > >_____ multichannel streamer (_____ 2, _____ 3, _____ 4 channels) > > >OTHER ( Please describe. ) > > >----- >Woody C. Sutherland woodys@odf.ucsd.edu > Shipboard Technical Support phone: 858 534-4425 > Scripps Institution of Oceanography fax: 858 534-7383 Dr. Louis Bartek Department of Geological Sciences University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill CB# 3315, Mitchell Hall Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3315 Tel. Office (919) 962-0687 Home (919) 960-4354 Fax. (919) 966-4519 email bartek@email.unc.edu ------------- End Forwarded Message ------------- ----- Woody C. Sutherland woodys@odf.ucsd.edu Shipboard Technical Support phone: 858 534-4425 Scripps Institution of Oceanography fax: 858 534-7383
Reply-To: <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> From: "Steven R. Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> To: "Bob Wilson" <restech@sdsioa.ucsd.edu>, "Chiu,C-S" <chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil>, "Cocke, Tom" <CockeWT@state.gov>, "Dufour, Rose" <shipsked@ucsd.edu>, "Kuhn, Beverly" <kuhnb@onr.navy.mil>, "Simmen, Jeffrey" <simmenj@onr.navy.mil>, "Tim Pfeiffer" <pfeifft@onr.navy.mil> Cc: "Bahr, Fred" <flbahr@nps.navy.mil>, "Murray, Steve" <murrays@onr.navy.mil>, "Goodman, Louis" <goodmal@onr.navy.mil>, "Lynch,J" <jim@vaquero.whoi.edu>, "Bartek Lou" <bartek@email.unc.edu>, "Gawarkiewicz,G" <glen@paddle.whoi.edu>, "Beardsley,R" <rbeardsley@whoi.edu>, "Wei, Ching-Ling" <weic@ccms.ntu.edu.tw>, "Tang, David" <tyt@ccms.ntu.edu.tw> Subject: SCS Cruise Ports Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 08:50:31 -0800 X-Priority: 3 All, After exploring some options, we (the chief scientists and myself) have decided to keep the spring South China Sea cruise as it was originally formulated, departing Pusan, South Korea April 7 and returning to Kaohsiung, Taiwan May 1 with no intermediate stops in between. We had thought there could be some savings of both time and money if the ship did a deadhead from Pusan to Kaohsiung, and the cruise went Kaohsiung to Kaohsiung, however this did not turn out to be the case. I won't elaborate here on all the reasons. So, we can now go forward with the cruise forms, shipping plans etc. Call me if questions. Best regards, Steve Prof. Steven R. Ramp Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Ra Naval Postgraduate School 833 Dyer Road Monterey, CA 93943-5122 ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil Phone 831 656 2201 Fax 831 656 2712
Reply-To: <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> From: "Steven R. Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> To: "Lynch,J" <jim@vaquero.whoi.edu>, "Lou Bartek" <bartek@email.unc.edu> Cc: "Bob Wilson" <restech@sdsioa.ucsd.edu>, "Dufour, Rose" <shipsked@ucsd.edu> Subject: Re: Your March cruise Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 13:12:40 -0800 X-Priority: 3 Hi Lou, I've been trying to reach you by phone. You and Jim both seem to think keeping the cruise Pusan to Kaohsiung without an intermediate loading stop in Kaohsiung on the way out is the way to go. I'm not trying to dictate this by any means, I just though that Kaohsiung to Kaohsiung might same us some time and money. If you are both happy with Pusan to Kaohsiung, we can just go ahead and make it that way. Comments? Steve ---------- > From: Lou Bartek <bartek@email.unc.edu> > To: ramp; jim@vaquero.whoi.edu > Cc: simmenj@onr.navy.mil; kravitj@onr.navy.mil; kuhnb@onr.navy.mil; shipsked@ucsd.edu; pfeifft@onr.navy.mil; CockeWT@state.gov; chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil > Subject: RE: Your March cruise > Date: Monday, January 03, 2000 9:23 AM > > Steve and Jim, > The response from Hank Perkins does not sound very supportive of > my group being able to leave my gear on the ship between the ECS and SCS > surveys. This means that we will have to completely pack-up and offload > in Pusan after the ECS survey, and then load at Pusan and set-up after > Perkins cruise and before the SCS cruise. It seems that we will loose > ship time if we then go to Kaohsiung, load additional equipment, and set-up > there after picking up equipment in Pusan and setting it up. Please give > this matter some thought and tell me how you want to handle this it. We > are coming down to the wire here and I need to have port details settled so > the I can finalize shipping arrangements and procure the least expensive > airline tickets. > > Happy New Year, > Lou > > > Hi Steve, > > > >Happy New Year! > > > >Without knowing what sort of gear the G&G cruises use, it's hard to say > >whether your suggestion is realistic. But since we will be recovering 14 > >moorings, making CTD/chemical stations, and probably conducting ROV and > >dragging operations, we need a lot of space. Specifically we need: all the > >space on the main deck, the hangar bay, the electronics lab, most of the > >main lab, the wet lab, most of the chemistry lab, and four winches, > >including the trawl winch. What we don't use is that forward lab on the > >port side, the forward half of the main lab, and the hold. So unless your > >space requirements are particularly small, the prospects are not good. > > > >Best wishes, > > > >Hank > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Steven R. Ramp [SMTP:ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil] > >Sent: Thursday, December 23, 1999 5:02 PM > >To: Perkins, Hank > >Cc: Bartek Lou; Simmen, Jeffrey; Kuhn, Beverly; Dufour, Rose; Tim > >Pfeiffer; > >Cocke, Tom; Chiu,C-S > >Subject: Your March cruise > > > >Hi Hank, > > > > As I believe you know, your cruise this March is sandwiched between two > >G&G surveys being conducted in the ECS and SCS by Lou Bartek and others. > >The question is, how much of his equipment has to come off the ship for > >your cruise? Can some of it stay on board and remain set up? This would > >get us an extra full day working on the ocean and is thus very important to > >us. Any accomodations you could make would be much appreciated. Feel free > >to converse directly with Lou (cc'd above) but keep me in the loop. > > > >Thanks much, and have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, > >Steve > > > > > >Prof. Steven R. Ramp > >Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Ra > >Naval Postgraduate School > >833 Dyer Road > >Monterey, CA 93943-5122 > >ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil > >Phone 831 656 2201 > >Fax 831 656 2712 > >
Reply-To: <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> From: "Steven R. Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> To: <SRRamp@aol.com>, <ramp@atlantis.oc.nps.navy.mil>, "Lou Bartek" <bartek@email.unc.edu> Cc: <simmenj@onr.navy.mil>, <kravitj@onr.navy.mil>, <kuhnb@onr.navy.mil>, <shipsked@ucsd.edu>, <chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil>, <jim@vaquero.whoi.edu>, <Schock@oe.fau.edu> Subject: Re: Cruise Details -- the story continues! Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 14:58:44 -0800 X-Priority: 3 Hi Lou, 1. Will send an e-mail to Hank Perkins with cc to you on these space issues. 2. Assuming the ship can leave Pusan as soon a Hank gets his gear off, we are looking at pm 8 April through am 11 April in Kaohsiung. Will confirm this next week. 3. I don't think you need a visa for Taiwan but it might also depend on length of stay. We need to check on this. Government types note you can NOT travel to Taiwan on a red passport, since we do not recognize them. You need to get a blue one. Ho ho ho, Steve ---------- > From: Lou Bartek <bartek@email.unc.edu> > To: SRRamp@aol.com; ramp; ramp > Cc: simmenj@onr.navy.mil; kravitj@onr.navy.mil; kuhnb@onr.navy.mil; shipsked@ucsd.edu; chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil; jim@vaquero.whoi.edu; Schock@oe.fau.edu > Subject: Re: Cruise Details -- the story continues! > Date: Thursday, December 23, 1999 12:24 PM > > Steve, > I talked with Jim Lynch today about leaving my gear on the ship for > the cruise between the ECS and SCS surveys. I did n ot respond earlier > because I thought that you was waiting on some other information (how much > of our gear had to come off of the ship) prior to determining if we could > run the SCS survey as a Kaohsiung to Kaohsiung operation. I can do this, > but I need a little information to make sure it is possible. > > 1. Jim tells me that the survey between the ECS and SCS surveys is > spending its time picking up ADCP's > and will probably not need much lab space. This is good if that > means that we do not have to put > all of our stuff away and then set it up again. We have a lot of > gear to set-up and had planned to > arrive in Pusan at the same time as the ship returned for the ADCP > cruise so that we would > have enough time set our equipment up again (figuring that we may > have to box it all up between > the ECS and SCS cruises). With this plan ship time is not lost > setting gear up. If we go > Kaohsiung to Kaohsiung and have to set everything up again we will > lose at least a day in port in Kaohsiung setting our equipment up > again. So can you tell me > whether we can leave our gear set-up between the two surveys? > > 2. If we do not have to set up all of our gear a second time and and the > decision is made to go Kaohsiung to > Kaohsiung, when you be able to tell us the new official departure > time for the ship out of > Kaohsiung for the SCS survey? I need to know this for planning and > getting the best rates > possible on our travel expenses. > > 3. Do you know whether we need visas to go in and out of Taiwan? We have > visas for South Korea. > > Lou > > > > "Steven R. Ramp" wrote: > > > Hi Rose, > > > > Expect some communication from Jim Lynch on the details of > >Kaohsiung vs. > > Pusan. If we don't lose much science time, then I think he will make the > > cruise Kaohsiung to Kaohsiung. > > > > 1. I am informed by Steve Murray that ONR will pay for the CTD > >rental and > > one Scripps CTD tech (in addition to the usual res techs). Can you provide > > Chief Jim with the name of this person? > > 2. How much of Bartek's stuff has to come off/on for Perkins cruise in > > between? Can he leave stuff on of does it all have to come off? > > > > Thanks, > > >Ok, > > > > There might be some other e-mail in my other box I haven't seen yet. > >Will write again if there is. > > > >Ho ho ho, > >Steve > >
Reply-To: <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> From: "Steven R. Ramp" <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil> To: "Dufour, Rose" <shipsked@ucsd.edu> Cc: "Orr, Marshall" <orr@wave31i.nrl.navy.mil>, "Simmen, Jeffrey" <simmenj@onr.navy.mil>, "Kuhn, Beverly" <kuhnb@onr.navy.mil>, "ASIAEX Office" <eos@ix.netcom.com>, "Chiu,C-S" <chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil>, "Lynch,J" <jim@vaquero.whoi.edu>, "Bartek Lou" <bartek@email.unc.edu> Subject: ASIAEX Cruises Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:49:15 -0800 X-Priority: 3 Dear Rose, The chief scientists have now been named. They are: East China Sea, Feb 28 - March 16 Dr. Louis Bartek Department of Geological Sciences University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill CB# 3315, Mitchell Hall Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3315 Tel. Office (919) 962-0687 Home (919) 960-4354 Fax. (919) 966-4519 email bartek@email.unc.edu South China Sea, April 7 - May 1 Dr. James Lynch Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Woods Hole, MA 02543 508 289 2230 jim@vaquero.whoi.edu Please let them know what you need from them to move ahead. It seems your forms are on the web. Based on all these folders I'm sorting through, there may even be place holders on the web under Warren's name. Can these files just be edited by the chiefs to save these guys some work? Other issues: 1. I can't locate any dialog or MOUs with Japan, but it seems you may have initiated some. Can you bring me up to date on any contact you have had with them and if they are in need of anything? Marshall can you comment on this? Lou B. says you've been working with Japan. 2. I have at least 10 different versions around on different documents of the coordinates for "the boxes" or study areas. What is the latest you have used when formally requesting clearances? 3. I often see both the pilot cruises written up in a single request. If you haven't already, it seems these need to be broken out into two. The SCS clearance concerns only PRC and Taiwan, while the ECS concerns PRC and Japan (and maybe Korea) but does not concern Taiwan. 4. It looks to me like it we stay south of 30N we are not in the Korean EEZ. Do you concur with this? All, do we need to go north of 30N? Lou's polygon is completely south of 30N. Please discuss at the meeting at NRL on Monday. 5. Ching-Sang is going to Korea tomorrow. I've asked him to ask them where they think their EEZ line is (Prof. Na, Dr. Kim). All for now, keep in touch, Steve Prof. Steven R. Ramp Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Ra Naval Postgraduate School 833 Dyer Road Monterey, CA 93943-5122 ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil Phone 831 656 2201 Fax 831 656 2712
From: "Marshall Orr" <orr@wave31i.nrl.navy.mil> To: <ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil>, "Dufour, Rose" <shipsked@ucsd.edu> Cc: "Orr, Marshall" <orr@wave31i.nrl.navy.mil>, "Simmen, Jeffrey" <simmenj@onr.navy.mil>, "Kuhn, Beverly" <kuhnb@onr.navy.mil>, "ASIAEX Office" <eos@ix.netcom.com>, "Chiu,C-S" <chiu@usw.nps.navy.mil>, "Lynch,J" <jim@vaquero.whoi.edu>, "Bartek Lou" <bartek@email.unc.edu>, "Steve Wolf" <swolf@wave31i.nrl.navy.mil>, "Edward Franchi" <efranchi@fenton.nrl.navy.mil> Subject: RE: ASIAEX Cruises Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 11:00:37 -0500 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Steve, The MOU with the US and Japan is a bilateral agreement between the Japanese Defense Agency and DOD. It is in place so there are no issues for you to be concerned with. My latest information indicates that all Japanese/US Asian waters work will occur in the Japanese economic zone. There is great sensitivity on the Japanese's part re going to the West of the zone boundary. Ed Franchi is the US contact point re the Japanese MOU. I am attaching a chart that has some Economic Zone lines on it for the East China Sea experiment area. The latest East China Sea coordinates that I have come from Warren's Draft of the Alaska Meeting report. They are: Latitude Longitude NW 30.5(N 125.0(E SW 28.0(N 125.0(E NE 30.5(N 127.0(E SE 28.0(N 127.0(E The South China Sea Coordinates that I have are as follow. The first set of coordinates are taken from an e-mail that Warren sent to Professor Dinghau Guan on May 7, 1999. South China Sea Point Latitude Longitude NW 22.5 118 SW 21.5 118 NE 22.5 119 SE 21.5 119 The above coordinates were adjusted during the Alaska meeting. The following coordinates appear in Warren's Draft of the Alaska meeting report. Latitude Longitude NW 22.5oN 117.0oE SW 21.0oN 117.0oE NE 22.5oN 119.0oE SE 21.0oN 119.0oE. My assumption is that Warren was using the Alaska meeting coordinates in his latest communications with his contacts in the PRC. I have, however, no evidence from any communications. Jeff may know better as I think he was with Warren on the latest China trips. The latest coordinates open the SCS box quite a bit. In order to plan the G&G survey I need to hear immediately from the oceanography community re which part of the Alaska SCS meeting box they want to work in so there is some potential overlap between the communities research efforts. I was not left with the impression that the PO folks had locked in on any part of the box. The bottom bathymetry in the above box may be more ugly than initially appreciated. NRL has gotten some recently updated charts for the proposed box. It is not simple. Spatial separation of the survey lines indicates that there is a lot of room for bathymetric surprise. The latest coordinates encompass ~ 50 m to 2000 m bathymetry contours. The fluid processes randomizing the water column change significantly as one crosses the shelf break and moves into the shallower water. The acoustics strawman put the experiment in the 100 to 250 m depth range. The fluid processes that randomize the water column in this depth zone are expected see Orr's Nov ASA presentation) to be quite different that those up on the shelf. The acoustics community has yet to come to grips with this issue re the science issues being addressed by the experiment nor have those issues from my standpoint been coordinated with the PO community. This coordination needs to be done before funds are expended on the G&G Recon. The bottom bathymetry may not be suitable for one of NRL's proposed research topics, ( i.e. volume controlled horizontal refraction issues). Marshall -----Original Message----- From: Steven R. Ramp [mailto:ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 7:49 PM To: Dufour, Rose Cc: Orr, Marshall; Simmen, Jeffrey; Kuhn, Beverly; ASIAEX Office; Chiu,C-S; Lynch,J; Bartek Lou Subject: ASIAEX Cruises Dear Rose, The chief scientists have now been named. They are: East China Sea, Feb 28 - March 16 Dr. Louis Bartek Department of Geological Sciences University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill CB# 3315, Mitchell Hall Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3315 Tel. Office (919) 962-0687 Home (919) 960-4354 Fax. (919) 966-4519 email bartek@email.unc.edu South China Sea, April 7 - May 1 Dr. James Lynch Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Woods Hole, MA 02543 508 289 2230 jim@vaquero.whoi.edu Please let them know what you need from them to move ahead. It seems your forms are on the web. Based on all these folders I'm sorting through, there may even be place holders on the web under Warren's name. Can these files just be edited by the chiefs to save these guys some work? Other issues: 1. I can't locate any dialog or MOUs with Japan, but it seems you may have initiated some. Can you bring me up to date on any contact you have had with them and if they are in need of anything? Marshall can you comment on this? Lou B. says you've been working with Japan. 2. I have at least 10 different versions around on different documents of the coordinates for "the boxes" or study areas. What is the latest you have used when formally requesting clearances? 3. I often see both the pilot cruises written up in a single request. If you haven't already, it seems these need to be broken out into two. The SCS clearance concerns only PRC and Taiwan, while the ECS concerns PRC and Japan (and maybe Korea) but does not concern Taiwan. 4. It looks to me like it we stay south of 30N we are not in the Korean EEZ. Do you concur with this? All, do we need to go north of 30N? Lou's polygon is completely south of 30N. Please discuss at the meeting at NRL on Monday. 5. Ching-Sang is going to Korea tomorrow. I've asked him to ask them where they think their EEZ line is (Prof. Na, Dr. Kim). All for now, keep in touch, Steve Prof. Steven R. Ramp Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Ra Naval Postgraduate School 833 Dyer Road Monterey, CA 93943-5122 ramp@oc.nps.navy.mil Phone 831 656 2201 Fax 831 656 2712
