1 / 9

All sites from all global ORION „conceptual proposals“ in 2005.

All sites from all global ORION „conceptual proposals“ in 2005. The 3 most coordinated proposals were derived from OceanSITES efforts. 4. 8. R. 11. S. 7. 6. R. 9. S. 5. 1. B. 1. 1. 3. 2. 13. CRITERIA used for site selections: high value and impact to many disciplines

spike
Télécharger la présentation

All sites from all global ORION „conceptual proposals“ in 2005.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. All sites from all global ORION „conceptual proposals“ in 2005. The 3 most coordinated proposals were derived from OceanSITES efforts. 4 8 R 11 S 7 6 R 9 S 5 1 B 1 1 3 2 13

  2. CRITERIA used for site selections: • high value and impact to many disciplines • building a NETWORK, not just collection of single sites • review process/results • contribution to acoustic network on basin-scale (either complete or to leverage additional acoustic sites) • avoid very remote locations since shiptime has to come from OOI • use SPAR buoys only where really necessary for the science • use acoustic rather than EOM moorings where sufficient (saves hardware, ROV, shiptime and shipsize) • BUT • want to demonstrate and gain experience with EOM moorings early in the project • have at least 1 mid-latitude SPAR site • reach the goal of 1 high-latitude SPAR site toward end of period

  3. PHASING: • Start with small number of sites that can demonstrate early in the project the capabilities being built, the technologies available, the value and impact; also with sites that can give guidance for future developments (gathering experience). • No SPAR technology available so early in project. • Most sites need a surface mooring for communication with seafloor network, possibly power, met sensors, PLUS a subsurface mooring with biogeochemical profilers in upper ocean, and a modest seafloor network. • 5 of the most highly ranked multi-community interest sites: one mid-latitude, one high-latitude, one EOM, one with established timeseries and infrastructure, one with international coordination

  4. Global strawman design EOM Total capital and install cost estimate 10Mio$

  5. Over following years, phase in additional sites: • only 1 intensive RIDGE type seafloor network with SPAR buoy can be afforded. Offer 6Mio$ to RIDGE community for ONE site, either Lucky Strike (Mid Atlantic Ridge), or 9N (East Pacific Rise) • install a high-latitude SPAR at Southern Ocean Site off Chile (high-priority site for many communities) and move the acoustic discus mooring from there to western South Pacific • complete Pacific Basin network and expand North Atlantic, taking into account European efforts there

  6. Global strawman design B A B A B B B A A B B A Chile moves to New Zealand in Phase B

  7. Global strawman design B A B A C B C B B C A A B B A C Chile moves to New Zealand in Phase B Total capital and install cost estimate 37Mio$

  8. Global strawman design B

  9. OceanSITES action: - Note: no transport sites, those fit better into NOAA interests - how much can locations be moved for optimizing acoustic paths - where is international coordination necessary/desirable ? How ? (purposely left out sites with dominating presence by other countries, e.g. PAP, but also included some where coordination is desirable/expected like equatorial Atlantic, Irminger Sea) - any feedback on the process/proposal ?

More Related