Niku VIII Plan

[richie conroy]

TIGHAR
5 hours ago
BREAKING NEWS
ANNOUNCING
The Plan for Niku VIII

What will it take to find whatever remains of the Earhart Electra? After more than a year of data analysis and operations review we believe we have the answer.

This is what Niku VIII will look like:

Dates: Thirty day expedition, mid-August to mid-September 2014. Exact dates to be determined.

Vessel: University of Hawaii oceanographic research ship Ka'Imikai-O-Kanaloa (aka KOK), the same ship we used for the 2012 Niku VII expedition.

Search Technology: Hawaiian Undersea Research Laboratory (HURL) Pisces IV and Pisces V manned submersibles, each carrying a pilot and two TIGHAR observers. Each sub is also equipped with High Definition video and still cameras, Standard Definition video with time, depth, heading, and altitude off the bottom data displayed, mechanical arms and recovery baskets.

Search Operations: A detailed "eyeball" and photographic examination of the entire mile-long underwater search area down to a depth of 1,000 meters, possibly deeper. "Live" searching by three people aboard each sub looking at wide vistas illuminated by powerful lights is far superior to searching by looking remotely via the toilet-paper tube view provided by a video camera on an ROV. With both subs in the water every day, the entire search area can be systematically covered in 7 to 10 days.

The plan for Niku VIII is built on the hard data gathered and the hard lessons learned during Niku VI and Niku VII. In the days and weeks to come we'll be putting out detailed information and answering questions about all aspects of the search in TIGHARNews and on the TIGHAR website and Facebook page. As always, our ability to do this work depends entirely upon your contributions, large and small.

There is also more on the subs on Tighar's Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/pages/TIGHAR/224536440657

[Mark Appel]

These are exciting and well-reasoned planning elements that to this distant observer do indeed appear to factor in the hard-won learnings of previous expeditions. I do hope there will contractually-binding safeguards and service and performance levels delineated for the vendors. But I'm guessing Ric and the Board have that covered...

Congratulations! This really is exciting.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Not disagreeing with the new plans but would it not be cheaper to use a smaller vessel, ROV and team to look at the area below the Bevington Object and Richies anomaly?

I'm not in on the planning.

This is a W.A.G.: The point of the manned subs is that if they see something interesting, they can grapple it right away.  The idea of mapping things well enough to come back to them later seems not to have worked out so well in practice as it seems it ought to have in theory. 

Having said that, I doubt very much that it is going to be fun "mowing the lawn" in those vehicles.  More power to those who volunteer for this assignment!

[Tim Mellon]

Not disagreeing with the new plans but would it not be cheaper to use a smaller vessel, ROV and team to look at the area below the Bevington Object and Richies anomaly?

I'm not in on the planning.

This is a W.A.G.: The point of the manned subs is that if they see something interesting, they can grapple it right away.

But Marty, the ROV used in 2012 was able to grapple things in real time: Wolfgang was so adept that he was able to use the grapple to latch on to the AUV stuck in the cave, then pull it out and release it to surface.

I think a bigger drawback to the ROV, as opposed to eyes on sight, is the reliance on the Standard Definition camera to produce images good enough to make decisions. If the High Definition could be made available to the ROV operator in real time, as I believe is technically possible, then the ROV should be able to perform just as adequately. YMMV.

[Greg Daspit]

Some informtion on Pisces IV and V
How does the lighting compare to the ROVs? How much more can the sub lighting allow the occupants to see ? how much wider view?

[Walt Holm]

Didn't TIGHAR look at manned submersibles once before for a Niku expedition. Have a vague recollection of seeing something on the website many years ago?

In 2009 I looked at the DeepFlight Super Falcon, as part of early planning for the 2010 Niku expedition.  The sub would have been good for covering broad areas of the reef slope, potentially the entire circumference of the island, down to a depth of 400-500'. It was decided at the time that it was more valuable to explore the limited area north of the Norwich City, down as deep as we possibly could.  This led to bringing an ROV with us in 2010, for searching down to ~300 meters.

[Ric Gillespie]

Not disagreeing with the new plans but would it not be cheaper to use a smaller vessel, ROV and team to look at the area below the Bevington Object and Richies anomaly?

Cheaper, yes, but our objective is to conduct a thorough search of the entire area.  Previous experience has demonstrated that ROVs and cameras are NOT the way to accomplish that goal.

[Ric Gillespie]

Some informtion on Pisces IV and V
How does the lighting compare to the ROVs? How much more can the sub lighting allow the occupants to see ? how much wider view?

Much better lighting,  Much wider view. No comparison. We'll be publishing specifics about the systems and the search plan.

[Ric Gillespie]

Am I right in thinking the cost would be in the region of $4 Million? 

Less than that.

Is that possible in just under a year to generate that income?

You can generate that kind of sponsorship in a few days.  All you need is the right sponsor.  The trick is finding the right sponsor.

[Ric Gillespie]

In 2009 I looked at the DeepFlight Super Falcon, as part of early planning for the 2010 Niku expedition.

The trouble with all of the submersibles that "fly" underwater is that you can't hover to examine an odd looking feature. The Pisces subs are kick-butt, industrial strength submersibles and HURL has extensive experience in finding man-made objects in steep coral reef environments like Niku.  These are the guys who can do the job.  I would have preferred to use them last year except one of the subs was in for inspection and overhaul and they never operate solo. 

[Tim Mellon]

Ric, I know you are aware of the snow-like plankton material that falls and settles on the slopes of the atoll. You will recall that the ROV, when it came close to the surface in both 2010 and 2012, stirred up a minor blizzard with the propulsion fans.

How are the submersibles able to cope with this problem? Enough stirred up and you will be flying in "instrument meteorological conditions" (IMC) with no reference to the terrain. For the ROV, this is an acceptable risk. For a vehicle with two or three humans aboard, I fear that some danger lurks for their safety.

Furthermore, even if you see a target worth retrieving, approaching the target in such conditions may make it impossible to grasp and retrieve the object. Have you seen demo videos that convince you that this is no obstacle?

[Ric Gillespie]

Ric, I know you are aware of the snow-like plankton material that falls and settles on the slopes of the atoll. You will recall that the ROV, when it came close to the surface in both 2010 and 2012, stirred up a minor blizzard with the propulsion fans.

How are the submersibles able to cope with this problem? Enough stirred up and you will be flying in "instrument meteorological conditions" (IMC) with no reference to the terrain. For the ROV, this is an acceptable risk. For a vehicle with two or three humans aboard, I fear that some danger lurks for their safety.

Furthermore, even if you see a target worth retrieving, approaching the target in such conditions may make it impossible to grasp and retrieve the object. Have you seen demo videos that convince you that this is no obstacle?

It's an interesting point and I can think of a couple of reasons why it shouldn't be a problem, but I'll bring it up with the folks at HURL and let everyone know what they say.

[Greg Daspit]

Ric, I know you are aware of the snow-like plankton material that falls and settles on the slopes of the atoll. You will recall that the ROV, when it came close to the surface in both 2010 and 2012, stirred up a minor blizzard with the propulsion fans.

How are the submersibles able to cope with this problem? Enough stirred up and you will be flying in "instrument meteorological conditions" (IMC) with no reference to the terrain. For the ROV, this is an acceptable risk. For a vehicle with two or three humans aboard, I fear that some danger lurks for their safety.

Furthermore, even if you see a target worth retrieving, approaching the target in such conditions may make it impossible to grasp and retrieve the object. Have you seen demo videos that convince you that this is no obstacle?

Wouldn't better lighting mean higher flying so the jets are farther away. Plus no cable to cause avalanches

[Tim Mellon]

Wouldn't better lighting mean higher flying so the jets are farther away. Plus no cable to cause avalanches

But Greg, if you want to get near enough to retrieve an object, the jets will also be near. The claws have arms that are only so long.

Avalanches, BTW, were not particularly a problem for the ROV, at least in 2012. Wolfgang was always able to maneuver so as to keep the tether behind him and out of the way. The tether did get caught in some tree-like growths when he was trying to free the AUV, but that was an unusual mission for his ROV.

[richie conroy]

Ric

I agree with Tim on this, Will a rov be deployed to site of anomaly or other priorities first and if of interest, only then the submersible would be deployed

I read a bit on these subs and one is kept above water in case of problems and when there is no danger to people inside sub on de cent,  would the second sub be deployed

On the last expedition when underwater mapping was done the fish still found more snags than man made targets