NOPP P.I.
Meeting Minutes
November 24, 1998

Absent: Hartley Hoskins (WHOI)

Guest: Vince Segowicz (NWS, Silver Spring)

A meeting of the Project LENA investigators was held November 24, 1998 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The meeting began at 10:00am.

Ann distributed an agenda for the meeting and asked Bob to be the meeting recorder. Ann also distributed

• copies of the on-line Open Issues and Progress on Specifications summary page;
• a web-page printout of information about Marine Computers from Great Lakes Marine Specialties;
• copies of e-mail correspondence with Tom Houston about his data system designed for yachts. His beta module will test for "water temperature, salinity, PH, CO2 and oxygen levels, as well as turbidity and flourescence."; and
• a copy of the abstract for Ann's ASLO presentation in February, 1999.

Discussion of system design; operating system; ruggedization, etc.

The issue of software updates was discussed. Most software vendors distribute their software on CD-ROM or via the Internet. This implied that our hardware platform should probably contain a CD-ROM drive.

This precipitated a discussion about our strategic approach for how our system would be added to a boat: as a separate computer system or as an add-on to existing hardware. These two choices offer the following pros and cons:

• Separate System attributes:
  • Fully control hardware and software environment
  • Easier implementation
  • Easier problem resolution if the system fails
  • Simpler updating procedures
  • May be more expensive if cannot take advantage of existing equipment
  • Requires fishermen to provide space for a second computer

• Add-on to existing hardware:
  • May be less expensive; takes advantage of existing hardware when available (as long as it meets specifications)
  • Requires less wheelhouse space if vessel already has a computer system aboard
  • May increase potential market size if system can be made to work on "any" PC's based, Microsoft Windows system.
  • More difficult to diagnose and resolve hardware/software problems since system environment is likely to be different on every vessel.

Limitations and other factors relating to using the system involve:

• System cost
• Boat size requirements
• Suitable environment for computer equipment
• Ability to utilize technology
• Equipment durability and ruggedness
• Market size (the larger the market, the lower the cost per system)

Related to these issues was whether this system would be "available" to every boat who wanted it, both the "little guy" and the "big guy". The opportunity would be there for everyone but the participants really need to "buy into" the program, including the fundamental and underlying scientific goals. This would likely be difficult for someone who wanted to be only "passively invovled" in the program; they really need to be fully engaged in it. Since it is hoped that the commercial version of the system would prove to provide a competitive edge to those fishermen who use it, it is reasonable to guess that all sucessful fishermen would eventually want it.

Ken asked for input on the look and feel of his user interface and, especially, how the data profiles should look (i.e. the "visualization of the profiles".) We also need the feedback from the Survey on this and whatever else the fishermen should would be useful (e.g. downloading of processed data; display of verticle profiles; and downloading of global images and other bit maps.)

Ken will provide Bob with either images or text showing the menu choices so that Bob an create a Web-based mockup of the system so the all the PI's can more easily provide feedback to Ken.

Operating System Requirements

We discussed what operating system environment would be required. Ken said that in his view it requires either NT or Windows 98, with a preference for NT since it offers a more stable environment, less likely to crash for unknown reasons. Ken noted that Barrie Walden at WHOI was working on browser capabilities to the Athena software, and that NOAA's Dennis Shields had ported the Athena software to NT. There was some confusion about what the Athena software provided us and whether we couldn't write our own. Ken and Dave H. provided the following background.

• WHOI developed the ATHENA software, which was MS-DOS based, to collect and archive data from multiple scientific sensors aboard ship. It uses the KMAN software development tools for implementation. It is flexible in that it can handle a wide array of instruments with little more than editing a configuration file. Subsequently, Dennis Shields at NOAA ported the software to NT and is using it on the NOAA fleet for their data acquisision requirements.

• Ken could have written the data acquisition software "from scratch" but it didn't make sense to do this given that the Athena software was available, free, and did the job.

A large majority agreed to base our system on the NT platform given that it afforded the required multi-tasking environment; offered improved resistance to crashes; and seemed to be the default PC Windows platform in the foreseeable future since the Windows 95/98 and Windows NT operating environments were merging within the next several years.

Sensor Selection

We discussed what sensors to deploy on the test platforms. A full IMET suite would involve seven (7) modules, including those to measure heat flux for climate research. It was agreed that this was not necessary nor would it fit within our budget constraints. We agreed to collect those data parameters identified as "priority 1" at the August 7^th PI meeting namely wind speed/direction, barometric pressure, air temperature, sea surface temperature, ship's position, and UTC date/time of observation. Dave H. offered to provide a single sensor module capabable of collecting these parameters. We also discussed a less costly instrument package, with lower resolution. It was noted that RM Young, for example, has a sensor package that collects barometric pressure, humidity, and air temperature for $5,000, but, of course, it does not offer the accuracy or build in self calibration capabilities of the IMET sensors. These instruments fall under Gary's area. He will cost out two sets of sensors to collect wind speed and direction, air temperature, and barametric pressure. (Ship's position and UTC date/time of observation should be available from the satellite navigation Inmarsat-C box.) Dave H. will look into the cost for a sea surface temperature sensor, for both wood and steal hulls, and prepare a budget.

Net Instrumentation

Gary reported that he is looking into radio frequency (RF) transceivers for the net instrumentation. He is also working on the interface.

Satellite Transceiver and Data Transmission

Bob said that an Inmarsat-C unit would be available from Keith von der Heydt (WHOI) but only for the short term. He will follow up with Keith since several present felt it would be useful to have it available, even for a short time. He will also contact Inmarsat for a free unit, given our project's goals.

It was also noted that data compression will be desireable as the cost of data transmissions is a major cost factor (at $0.01 per character). Ship and net sensor data are planned for transmission every hour, although fish catch data need only be transmitted twice a day. Given the format of the IMET sensor data, it is likely that we will have to write software to reformat these data before transmission.

Hardware Platform Decision

We agreed that the data acquision, plotting, and transmission computing hardware requires two ports for GPS input (one for us and one for the naviation software), and one RS-485 port for the Athena instrument sensors. It was noted that WHOI uses eight (8) ports and NOAA used 16, 32, 48, etc. ports. A PCMCIA port could be used to provide the additional ports.

A large majority agreed that a generic, NT based, PC laptop would provide the necessary ports, speed and screen resolution. We agreed that Joe would continue his investigations of a ruggedized computer system and also provide the project with two such laptops. Cliff and Ken will provide Joe with more detailed specifications for these laptops.

Gear Ownership

There was a discussion about whether the fisherman could keep the equipment we provide to them. Ann reviewed the funding agency's policies on gear ownership. Generally, the funding agency retains ownership of any equipment purchased under a grant, but typically allows the original purchaser to keep the equipment as long as it is used in the same spirit as the original grant. The original purchaser is accoutable for the equipment; it cannot "dissapear".

Invited Speaker: Vince Segowicz (NWS, Silver Spring)

Vince reported on his agency's efforts to automate obseration reports. In the 1970's they tried a $70,000 GOOS based system that worked. It reported barametriec pressure, air temperature, etc. However, it required a lot of maintainence and was too expensive to deploy in large numbers.

He said that he would be interested in receiving timely information (e.g. air temperature to a tenth of a degree), in their format, four times a day and would pay for the cost of data transmission. He also offered to provide Ann with a list of potential customers. He mentioned Courtney Coleman, Bethesda, Maryland (@comsac.com).

Web Site Enhancements

Topics for Our Next Meeting

• Design of the demonstration project and a discussion of the duration of the testing
• Looking for additional customer capabilities

Possible visitors for future meetings include Beth Horton (or Jay Bernett sp?) from the Navy Oceanographic Office, Bob Thompson from NWS; or an NMFS representative to discuss assessment, historical fishing information and the vessel location system and logbook requirements.

The meeting adjourned at 3:40pm.