…and this is a 
Go sign this petition to maintain the tools for sea exploration at Florida Atlantic University. They're trying to get a thousand signatures…we can do that in no time at all.
The Johnson-Sea-Link I & II submersibles are owned and operated by Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute (HBOI) at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Fort Pierce, Florida. They are launched from the HBOI research vessel R/V Seward Johnson, a 204-ft ,purpose built ,state of the art platform redesigned in 1994 which displaces 1282 tons and has a 6,000 nautical mile range. An experienced captain and crew constantly maintain the R/V Seward Johnson as part of the University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) Fleet of research vessels. A team of highly skilled sub pilots operate, maintain and upgrade the submersibles according to strict safety protocols. The Johnson-Sea-Link submersibles were built in 1971. Almost four decades, 9,000 dives and continuous upgrades and improvements later, the Johnson-Sea-Link I submersibles and II, along with their support ship the R/V Seward Johnson, remain invaluable platforms for exploring the oceans.
&hellip:
Unfortunately, the current administration of HBOI has announced its decision to sell the R/V Seward Johnson and retire the JSL submersibles in spite of a lack of technologies with similar or better capabilities at HBOI, FAU or any other institution on the East coast of the U.S. While some argue that this expensive technology is outdated and tied to its mother ship, this view is not shared by the scientific community. The Alvin submersible operated by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts is 10 years older, and still performs between 150 and 200 dives a year. No one considers the Alvin 40-year old technology, or criticizes its dependence on the research vessel Atlantis for its deployment. It is still considered a valuable workhorse. While NOAA has just awarded HBOI a 22.5 million dollars grant to be a Cooperative Institute, in part due to their ability to perform oceanographic study with such tools as the R/V Seward Johnson and JSL submersibles, it is unclear whether these assets will be supported by that grant money. Unless a new source of funding is found to support these technologies, the current administration will continue their plans to abandon these technologies. Maintaining and operating these technologies is expensive, and the HBOI administration lacks the funds to continue to support these assets. Thus, it is critical for the State of Florida to invest in these amazing technologies to further our ocean exploration and our scientific progress.
Since FAU is a state university, the submersibles and research vessel are property of the State of Florida and the taxpayers should have a say in choosing whether these amazing technologies which are helping us discover and protect our underwater assets should be maintained. These are expensive technologies to maintain, but their benefits far outweigh their costs. If you believe that the state of Florida should invest in science, education and technology, please sign this petition to indicate to our legislators that you believe the HBOI ship and submersibles should be saved from sale or retirement and supported by the state of Florida.
Environment
Comments
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
May 29, 2009 7:19 PM
Wow, this is a case where I'd like more information. Like, are there replacement tools being developed, would saving them cut into other research, etc.?
They're certainly old enough, not automatically a reason to discard them, of course.
This is a case unlike that of ID vs. evolution, in that here two or more sides are likely to have good reasons for their preferred courses of action.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Moggie
|
May 29, 2009 7:25 PM
I wonder how much the FAU football coach is paid?
Posted by: j a higginbotham | May 29, 2009 7:31 PM
With pilots (and at that age), these are manned, correct? Ballard (of Alvin et al) has for some time said manned submersibles are obsolete technology. But FAU has no plans for updating to remote controlled vehicles? How are these better than the Woods Hole (East coast of US) submersibles?
Posted by: The Government | May 29, 2009 7:33 PM
Sorry. The money pump is dry. Your elected officials, all of them, frittered it away. Move along now.
Posted by: arachnophilia
|
May 29, 2009 7:34 PM
$363,179.30
football is apparently a revenue generator. which is peculiar, because in many years i went to FAU, i never once heard a single person say "hey, did you catch the game last night?"
Posted by: James F | May 29, 2009 8:00 PM
I'm having a Thomas Dolby flashback....
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
May 29, 2009 8:23 PM
I signed the petition.
Glen Davidson:
They answer your questions on the web site.
Posted by: Gregory Kusnick
|
May 29, 2009 8:24 PM
Hmm, sounds like an old Alfa Romeo I used to drive.
Posted by: Sastra
|
May 29, 2009 8:31 PM
So, on this thread we now consider Alvin a "valuable workhorse."
Oh, wait, different Alvin.
Posted by: rrt | May 29, 2009 8:35 PM
I had the opportunity to visit HBOI and check out these subs once upon a time. They were very impressive (to me), and I'm not sure there are many (if any?) research subs out there that mirror some of their capabilities. The main bubble--a plexiglas sphere--is quite a nice feature, I'm pretty sure its scientific payload is among the more flexible and modular, and it can deploy divers. There's also something to be said for an established design that's seen a lot of practice and improvement, though sadly those improvements did come after an early incident that killed two crew. The subs are pretty recognizable from various nature shows.
Anyway, I'd feel bad if they were lost.
Posted by: Victor | May 29, 2009 8:54 PM
Done and done.
Posted by: spike | May 29, 2009 9:19 PM
The Seward Johnson is a modern, well equipped research boat of moderate size. It is more capable and less expensive than older boats of similar size. I hope it remains in the US research fleet. (UNOLS). Someone commented on Bobby Ballard's statement about submersibles being obsolete (with ROVs and AUVs replacing them). It depends on what you are doing. The main difficulty is the tether for the ROV greatly impedes its agility, so for some things, (particularly picking up biological specimens) the sub is better, but the ROV can stay down for much longer intervals and so cover more ground. Lives are at risk in the sub too.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | May 29, 2009 9:23 PM
Signed happily.
Posted by: Emmet, OM
|
May 29, 2009 10:02 PM
Seems relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfOF2FdZksU
Posted by: Diego | May 29, 2009 10:06 PM
I grew up not far from Harbor Branch, and they definitely have some cool toys. This decision would be a travesty.
Posted by: Fred the Hun
|
May 29, 2009 10:24 PM
j a higginbotham @ 3
With pilots (and at that age), these are manned, correct? Ballard (of Alvin et al) has for some time said manned submersibles are obsolete technology. But FAU has no plans for updating to remote controlled vehicles? How are these better than the Woods Hole (East coast of US) submersibles?
I have mixed feelings about your comment, for one I'm an ex deep sea commercial diver who still dives. I'm the president of a dive club in florida and while I strongly support research with state of the art robotics, there's nothing like being there in person.
If we look at space exploration we couldn't do research on Mars without robots and while I'm not a big fan of the manned space shuttle missions in general, I was awe struck by the recent mission to repair the Hubble telescope.
Big sigh! Like I said mixed feelings but I contributed my personalized signature to this one.
Posted by: Fred the Hun
|
May 29, 2009 10:28 PM
Dang it forgot the blockquote tags
Posted by: Tom | May 29, 2009 11:25 PM
We have already learned everything there is to know so we don't need to invest in research.
Didn't you get the memo.
Posted by: littlejohn | May 29, 2009 11:37 PM
Signed happily. I don't know much about oceanography, but I do know we are just beginning to recover from eight years of hostility toward science. We have to start someplace.
Posted by: Lord Zero | May 30, 2009 2:15 AM
# 591: 11:11 pm PDT,
May 29, Miguel Opazo,
Chile
We need to keep this equipment. Research on Science is never wasted money, what increases our understanding of the world surrounding us, what furthers mankind`s knowlenge, is never and never will be a waste. I urge you to keep supporting reason and science. We wish to keep learning. Allow us to.
Posted by: A Dog Smirk
|
May 30, 2009 3:34 AM
I did my duty. Do I get a cookie or something?
Posted by: luna1580 | May 30, 2009 3:48 AM
and as the key "1000 signatures" they think might sway they FL legislature are probably going to be meaningfully counted only from the signatures of FL residents, please -if you read this and think the submersibles should be maintained as university research vessels- do sign the petition after it hits 1000.
Florida lawmakers aren't probably going to give much weight to random opinions from all across the globe -unless there are a lot of them! and i say this as an ex-FL resident....
i signed it around #350, but as a current resident of IL, USA, laura ostrenga.
Posted by: Barack Obama | May 30, 2009 5:28 AM
Nope. Don't bother signing. No more money. We'll be making the new nationalized Camaro, soon. Could cut you a fleet deal on some of those. Maybe you could duct tape it up to make it air tight or something? Sorry, the real one does not transform into a Bumblebee autobot.
Posted by: Wonko | May 30, 2009 5:33 AM
And online petitions work how often? Like, maybe, never? I thought empirical data was valued around here. ;-)
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/petition/internet.asp
Posted by: BobbyEarle
|
May 30, 2009 8:03 AM
I signed.
I just got home from a long, 12 hour shift, and what a way to top off the day: when the petition came up, there were 666 people who had already signed! This, of course, made me guffaw into my frugal breakfast (dinner?) of carne asada tacos, and Canada Dry ginger ale.
Must be Saturday.
Posted by: astrounit | May 30, 2009 8:07 AM
This is crazy. As SICK as the oceans ARE, and we're abandoning (not just curtailing or cutting back) on the continued development of technology that will help us understand what we NEED to in order to help save what we can? Technology that's just recently gotten REALLY good at it?
Is that how it works now? Not knowing something is less expensive than knowing something? Really? Technological progress costs more than not trying to understand the ocean at all depths? Is that so? Even when the ocean is in serious trouble? With most of the world's fish already gone from as recently as 50 years ago and major coral reefs in jeopardy?
Technology costs a bit o' money, but we can afford to let vast parts of the ocean get sicker and die without doing a damned thing?
I've got a solution. Why not hand everything over to the Japanese whaling industry? They could use the economic boost too. They are experts at conducting their "whale research" totally above water. And, as everyone well knows (because they keep saying so) they know all about how to conduct "science" while obtaining plenty enough money to maintain operations...as well as a little on the side for dinner.
Maybe then, with international support, along the next decade or three they could be cajoled to convert part of their fleet of little boats into garbage scowls to mop up all that plastic trash that is circulating around the Pacific.
Before they hunt the whales into obliteration, which would considerably lessen their motivation for doing so.
Whales are a vital economic resource to the Japanese whaling industry. The Japanese whaling industry is conducting scientific research to help maintain their resource. They must be very interested indeed in preserving their resource stocks. They MUST know how important it is and probably know more about whales than anybody else. Therefore we can all rely on them to make damned sure that the ocean is kept free and clean of GARBAGE that threatens their industry.
They wouldn't allow whales - their resource - to sicken and die of plastic contamination and other pollutants, would they?
Quick! Get those guys in Australia on the phone! Let 'em know straight-away they've had the wrong impression and get them to stop hindering the Japanese whalers from saving the whale!
Then we can breathe a sigh of relief and not worry about throwing money away on any dang submersibles. Let the Japanese whalers, in all their scientific expertise, save the oceans. They have to in order to protect their precious resource. Right?
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | May 30, 2009 11:29 AM
Oh, this is rich, this is funnier than shit.
No thanks, I've seen first hand how these so called 'research vessels' and their staff operate. Scripps is even worse.
I'd go with Wood's Hole or Lamont Dougherty anytime. The reason they merged with FAU is because they lost their gravy train. So they just hopped on yet another gravy train.
Florida's real problem : Bill Nelson and NASA.
The gravy train is over, folks.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | May 30, 2009 11:54 AM
arachnophilia (@5):
IIRC, FAU only started up its football program less than 10 years ago, so depending on when you were there, it's not surprising you didn't hear much buzz.
And Div. I football is a net revenue generator at virtually every school that has it. Plus,
Posted by: Southern Fried Scientist | May 30, 2009 12:03 PM
We're having the same discussion over on Southern Fried Science. While submersibles are wonderful things, remote operated vehicles are safer, more effective, and cheaper.
http://southernfriedscience.com/2009/05/30/manned-or-unmanned/
Posted by: Notagod | May 30, 2009 1:08 PM
Can you provide audited financial reports? Even if true though, it doesn't justify the large salaries and expenses of the football. If they are a revenue generator they could generate more revenue with reasonable salaries and expenses.
Posted by: Everbleed | May 30, 2009 5:06 PM
I signed. Not sorry. Every ship counts.
Posted by: arachnophilia
|
June 1, 2009 3:01 AM
@bill dauphin: (#28) i graduated december 2007. but my father is a mathematics professor there, and has been for my entire life. i do remember a time before football at FAU, yes. and the time after. and really, it's not all that different. maybe the university sees more income but... somehow i doubt it.
one time they literally mailed every student free tickets, and still couldn't fill the stadium. no one cares. part of this is the "find another university" mentality. drive around the parking lot, and at least 1/3 or the cars will have UF stickers on them. another 1/4 FSU stickers. part of it is that we're just not especially a football school (yet).
Posted by: Peter | June 4, 2009 9:26 PM
Thank you, PZ, for raising awareness about this issue, and sending in your army. Every bit helps.