58 



certainly do not favor reducing NASA's funding to increase ocean efforts, but there is 

 some justification for equality. 1 trust that it is clear that I do not mean to imply thai 

 NASA should henceforth be limited to the equivalent of NOAA's budget.for undersea 

 science and technology. 



As an example of the disparity between the rapid development of aerospace capability as 

 compared to ocean access - and coincident research ~ it is useful to recall how much 

 progress has been made in both realms in the six and a half decades since Charles A. 

 Lin^iergh made his historic first solo crossing of the Atlantic Ocean. Soon after, in the 

 early 1930's, William Bcebc and Otis Barton made the first successful descents in history 

 to as much as half a mile beneath the surface of that same ocean. 



Today, it is still considered rettuirkable to be able to work at 1000 meters depth. I am 

 among the privil^ed few who have piloted small submersibles that deep and have 

 participated as a scientific researcher in others, including a dive that I made while 

 serving as Chief Scientist of NOAA in the deepest-diving submersible operating today, 

 Japan's Shinkai 6500, This three-person system is one of a global fleet of but five 

 manned submersibles capable of travelling to as much as one half of the ocean's depth. 

 France has one, the Nautile; the U. S. Navy operates Sea Qiff (capable of travelling to 

 6,000 m dq>th) and occasionally allows a civilian scientist aboard, usually under the 

 auspices of the NURP program. Russia has two, Mir I and Mir U, launched in 1987 and 

 from the beginning dedicated to scientific research and exploration. Significantly, these 

 two subs are presently operating in the Pacific Ocean in support of a U.S. research 

 project To my laiowle<i^e> no Russian scientist has been aboard this nation's 

 technological counterpart, Seacliff. Too often, U, S. scientists must go to other countries 

 asking for access to their underwater technology. Where is ours? 



The Alvin submersible, in operation since 1964 at Woods Hole Oceanographic 

 Institution (WHOI), is a proven workhorse that continues to produce an astonishingly rich 

 track record of performance in depths to 4000 meters. NURP contributes to its operation 

 in collaboration with the National Science Foundation and the U. S. Navy. There is also 

 an active and effective program involving remote vehicle operation and technology 

 development at WHOI. 



Two Johnson-Sea-Link submersibles have been operaied for undersea research by Harbor 

 Branch Oceanographic Institution since about 1970, sometiines using funds provided by 

 NURP. Occasionally, finding for operation of other small submersibles and remotely 

 openoed vehicles (ROV's) is provided through NURP. 



At the Montery Bay Aquarium Research Instinnion (MBARI) in Monterey, California, 

 important developments in remotely operated vehicle (ROV) sj'stems have been 

 supported with private funds, litfgeiy contributed by industriaiiist and philanthropist, 

 David Packard Development and use of hundreds of ROV's produced in the past decade 

 by U. S. companies - including more than 250 of Deep Ocean Engineering's Phantom 

 systems - has been possible largely because of the market provided by national and 

 international industry and military interests. It is ironic that there is not, in parallel, a 

 substantial federal commitmem to capitalize on, cooperate with and provide 

 encouragement for these effective and largly private endeavors through a vigorous 

 National Underwater Research Program.. 



Rather, worid leadership for underwater technology and research has moved to Japan. 

 Soon, Japan will be the only nation to have woridng access to full ocean depth. This 

 year, an unmanned vehicle operating from a dedicated support ship will be launched by 

 J AMSTBC, Japan's well-funded national facility for undersea technology and research. 



