Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Tighar yacht  (Read 14553 times)

Craig Romig

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
Tighar yacht
« on: August 04, 2015, 01:07:18 AM »

I have wondered if it might be beneficial for tighar to purchase a ship for expeditions.

I'm sure there are many many pitfalls to having a ship though. Employees to run it. Storage when not in use. Maintaince etc. Renting it out such as nai'a does could be one way to offset some of those problems. But I'm not sure how that would work with a nonprofit entity.

Maybe tighar could buy stock in a ship or company and get use of the ship under favorful terms.
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Tighar yacht
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2015, 12:18:51 PM »

BIG hole in the water into which to throw much money, big boats are... (small boats just make relatively smaller holes for money to go into)... especially those with the special capabilities Chris rightly mentions.  Better to rent the best for the least amount of time needed to get 'er done.

While I admire the sheer fortitude of going after a target with something like Nai'a, that kind of work is a seriously demanding task (staying on station accurately, etc.) - that kind of equipment is big-big bucks - and IMO a lot more acreage would have to be covered to stand a real chance of wringing the seamount dry out there.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Ted G Campbell

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 337
Re: Tighar yacht
« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2015, 08:06:27 PM »

Let’s stop this doing it alone process.  Enter into a joint venture agreement with those who have the assets to get the job done e.g. U. of Hawaii and there ships.
Ted
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2951
Re: Tighar yacht
« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2015, 08:19:30 PM »

Let’s stop this doing it alone process.  Enter into a joint venture agreement with those who have the assets to get the job done e.g. U. of Hawaii and there ships.

That was Niku VII and the Ka’imikai-o-Kanaloa (“Heavenly Searcher of the Sea”). TIGHAR had a chance to use that ship again for Niku VIII, along with a magnificent underwater vehicle, but funding could not be found while the window of opportunity was open.

"Joint ventures" still cost money.  "No bucks, no Buck Rogers."
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Monty Fowler

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • "The real answer is always the right answer."
Re: Tighar yacht
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2015, 05:30:22 AM »

That was Niku VII and the Ka’imikai-o-Kanaloa (“Heavenly Searcher of the Sea”). TIGHAR had a chance to use that ship again for Niku VIII, along with a magnificent underwater vehicle, but funding could not be found while the window of opportunity was open.

I think an explanation is in order; I didn't realize there was such an extremely limited time period prescribed for when Niku VIII HAD to take place.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 EC
Ex-TIGHAR member No. 2189 E C R SP, 1998-2016
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2951
Re: Tighar yacht
« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2015, 05:39:19 AM »

That was Niku VII and the Ka’imikai-o-Kanaloa (“Heavenly Searcher of the Sea”). TIGHAR had a chance to use that ship again for Niku VIII, along with a magnificent underwater vehicle, but funding could not be found while the window of opportunity was open.

I think an explanation is in order; I didn't realize there was such an extremely limited time period prescribed for when Niku VIII HAD to take place.

The ship and the ROV were only available for a short time.

This was explained on the website when TIGHAR announced the opportunity and tried to secure funding in time to take advantage of the superb equipment.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Tighar yacht
« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2015, 09:58:36 AM »

Well recalled, Marty, but for an effort like finding a lost Electra of fame in a vast place such as even Niku's sea slope, it seems years, not weeks or months of planning and resource commitment might be more the norm.

I do recall that the equipment that was spoken of was uniquely placed for the described window - but that cannot be the last of such opportunities in an area like the Pacific Ocean.  It does seem that TIGHAR was very schedule conscious rather than focused on sticking to the 'big gun' approach, even if another season or two were needed.  Seems like Nauticos and others like them do spend a good deal of time preparing for these things and getting resources to bear, so Monty's comment struck home to me.

As does Ted's - my belief is that there are worthy entities around that might help greatly if a more consortive  effort were cultivated.  To do a truly deeper and wider search might take two or three years of seeking those out and pulling it together, but two and a half decades  to get into this to be where we are should underscore that this isn't so bad to consider.

What may be sobering to would-be supporters and partners, however, is what WAS found on this expedition: to at least some observers, the realization by 'Princess' passenger discoveries that the store wel could have produced certain wares found at seven site and the realization that 'camp zero' isn't viable, the attractiveness of the hypothesis may have lost some luster.

In any case, it appears considerable time and careful planning and cultivation of major help would be required to make the kind of effort Ric recently also suggested is needed if a chance of finding the bird is to be had: look deeper and wider.  Any who'd support that must be willing to accept that the supportive case made by land-found material, etc. remains essentially circumstantial and perhaps is now thinner than before - or so some may see it as being.

In any case, 'we're going to need a bigger boat" seems an apt point, if there's to be any shot at laying hands on the Electra, if she's there.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2951
Re: Tighar yacht
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2015, 10:54:21 AM »

Well recalled, Marty, but for an effort like finding a lost Electra of fame in a vast place such as even Niku's sea slope, it seems years, not weeks or months of planning and resource commitment might be more the norm.

I'm pretty sure TIGHAR spent years getting ready for Niku VII.

Quote
In any case, 'we're going to need a bigger boat" seems an apt point, if there's to be any shot at laying hands on the Electra, if she's there.

They had the bigger boat once.

The professionals whom they hired to do the sonar survey failed them.

The small ROV would have been sufficient to survey the anomaly and other interesting features, had it worked.

The professionals who provided it did not charge TIGHAR for their services, which is very noble of them.

Stuff happens.

Professionals built the Hubble telescope.  They built it wrong.  They had to repair their errors.

I know that TIGHAR is working to learn from Niku VIII.  Niku IX will be different, though I don't know exactly how that will all work out.

I love TIGHAR, and respect what it has done.  I've put my time and money where my mouth is.  I think it is a worthwhile investment.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Tighar yacht
« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2015, 11:45:21 AM »

Nothing like the right spectacles when one's view needs correcting, Hubble's an apt example, Marty. 
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2951
Re: Tighar yacht
« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2015, 12:45:34 PM »

The professionals who provided it did not charge TIGHAR for their services, which is very noble of them.

Is that just the technical support or the whole ROV package?

I believe it was for the whole package.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Jeff Scott

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 93
Re: Tighar yacht
« Reply #10 on: August 09, 2015, 04:59:34 PM »

Let’s stop this doing it alone process.  Enter into a joint venture agreement with those who have the assets to get the job done e.g. U. of Hawaii and there ships.

That was Niku VII and the Ka’imikai-o-Kanaloa (“Heavenly Searcher of the Sea”). TIGHAR had a chance to use that ship again for Niku VIII, along with a magnificent underwater vehicle, but funding could not be found while the window of opportunity was open.

I interpreted Mr. Campbell's suggestion as more than chartering an external outfit to work under TIGHAR's direction, but as becoming an equal or even junior partner with another organization equipped to do the expensive and complicated work necessary to finally prove or disprove the Nikumaroro hypothesis.  It appears the only potential "any idiot artifact" is to find a significant and identifiable portion of the Electra presumed to rest off the shore of the island.  TIGHAR has attempted to do this 4 times now on Niku II, VI, VII, and VIII.  Each attempt was unsuccessful.

When is it time to start asking questions about whether an endeavor of this magnitude is simply beyond TIGHAR's abilities?  Can TIGHAR raise the millions in funding to obtain the needed equipment?  Does TIGHAR have the in-house talent to organize, manage and direct such a complex enterprise?

If definitive proof is the goal, maybe it's time to ask the likes of a Woods Hole Institute, Nauticos, Paul Allen, Waitt Institute, or Sea Research Society to take the lead in organizing the funding and technical expertise required for the kind of sophisticated "deep and wide" search that Jeff Neville suggests.



I think an explanation is in order; I didn't realize there was such an extremely limited time period prescribed for when Niku VIII HAD to take place.

I believe the "window of opportunity" refers to the original Niku VIII plan wherein the K-O-K would bring manned submersibles to the island for a search of "the anomaly."  The window would close at the end of 2014 when the University of Hawaii warned the manned submersibles might be retired.  (They are still active into 2015, but how long funding remains available to operate and maintain these pricy vehicles is still a concern.)

Nonetheless, the question about why the rescoped Niku VIII--using Nai'a and an ROV--had to be so urgently done in summer 2015 remains a valid one.  I believe a down payment on the Nai'a charter was made last October, so this became the commitment to pull off the expedition or lose that money.  Still, why charter the boat when so little funding or planning was in place?  What was the pressing need to do Niku VIII in 2015 instead of waiting another year or two to raise adequate funds, prove the ROV technology was up to the task, and have a better prepared project management plan?



I know that TIGHAR is working to learn from Niku VIII.  Niku IX will be different, though I don't know exactly how that will all work out.

Wait a minute--Niku IX?  When was this announced?  Is it a sure thing that yet another expedition will be mounted?  If TIGHAR can't raise the funds and lacks the technical knowledge to successfully pull off an undersea search, what is the purpose of yet another trip?

When does TIGHAR consider moving on from the Earhart Project and do something else?  There are countless mysteries to be explored and historic aircraft to be preserved--why is this case consuming the vast majority of TIGHAR's resources for so many years? How do the rank-and-file members get a voice in what TIGHAR does with its limited resources?
It's not too late to be great.
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2951
Re: Tighar yacht
« Reply #11 on: August 09, 2015, 05:51:34 PM »

How do the rank-and-file members get a voice in what TIGHAR does with its limited resources?

Give enough money to move out of the rank-and-file?
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Bob Smith

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
  • Are We There Yet?
Re: Tighar yacht
« Reply #12 on: August 09, 2015, 06:31:19 PM »

I believe we have a consensus of opinions, after reading the last 15 or so posts, that there is a need for change to "wider and deeper" . And that includes both in the planning, and in the doing stages of the next expedition, and I can see, I think, where many more members of TIGHAR would be able to be convinced of such an act, but  with one exception: They probably don't want to get involved in the business of owning a large special purpose boat (ship) or luxury liner!
Planning is,  and always has been as far as it looks from here, the key to this groups' success. TIGHAR has always been able to teach us something, whether good or not, some times more or better than others. Can't all these successes and failures be all rolled into one really good consciously, seriously excellent activity that brings about a close to perfect result,namely, finding something at least big enough to have enough space on it's surface for an identifying feature, number, trademark, whatever.?
Bob S.
 
« Last Edit: August 09, 2015, 07:28:58 PM by Bob Smith »
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2951
Re: Tighar yacht
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2015, 05:21:20 AM »

Surely the paying members should have a voice on the board.  I know its common practice in the UK to have such representation.

I'm morally certain that all of the members of the board are "paying members."
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: Tighar yacht
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2015, 06:56:17 AM »

Chris and Jeff Scott have good points here (and obviously I agree with 'wider and deeper' if this effort is to be continued).  Bob Smith has summed it well too.

No doubt the existing board members are 'paying', I am morally certain of that as well - and I didn't see that questioned, morally or otherwise.  Point is there are others who also contribute, if on a smaller scale - granted, but who also have some brainpower and ideas that are worth the hearing. 

Four sea searches have been made and now we're discussing this as we are because of the results thus far; Ted Campbell has made a good-sense contribution on these pages and by all I can tell is also probably a fairly substantial donor (he made the down-under photo chase happen in a big way, for one) - certainly on a greater scale than I am able to be.  In sum the answer seems to be is 'don't bother unless you want to send more money' and 'we had the bigger boat' - but that isn't the point at all:

It is 'wider and deeper' project management talent that we're talking about - and Ted nailed it.  Jeff Scott underscored it well, and Chris makes the excellent point: if TIGHAR would crowd source, then how about letting crowd-sourced ideas sink in a bit deeper?  The board that we can be 'morally certain' of has gotten us to this place of discussion - that is observable, with all due respect (and I do respect the great generosities of that board that have been manifest a number of times).

This isn't about raw criticism, it is about wanting something better for the order.  It is about taking full advantage of 'crowd sourcing' - including ideas, and looking closely at how those who have succeeded at such ventures have done it - and moving toward a form of project management along those lines.  True, Nauticos-Waitt didn't 'find' the Electra - but they DID succeed technically in searching a large and fairly complex area of sea floor.  Woods Hole certainly has great experience and successes - and there are others.  But it will take an expansively thinking and perhaps fresh board effort to have hope of gaining more suppport and going there, it seems.

Again, with all due respect, the current board got us to this point.  What will change to improve our direction, and who will do it?  TIGHAR seems to need the moral certainty of an improved direction on such efforts or there's likely to be little future for this search: the dry land and near shore efforts appear to have been reasonably exhausted now, and it is apparent that the perusal of what we have has limited value to many observers. 

'Send more money' is a common plea for most organizations - but how does one break the status quo, create more confidence and make people want to do that?  My thought is to listen more carefully to the small voices that have big and good ideas, and Ted, Chris and Jeff Scott all contributed a nice start, IMO.

Morally, I'm fairly certain that isn't likely here - not to be negative, it's just a harkening to human nature and the way of organizations: the die appears cast when we see ideas like this floated but get the answers that we're seeing here.  Of course I could be surprised - and would be delighted, if so.  I am open to being delighted if that can be; I am not interested in sending more money to support the existing arrangement.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
« Last Edit: August 10, 2015, 07:01:01 AM by Jeffrey Neville »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
 

Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP