Milestone-Proposal talk:ALVIN: Deep-Sea Research Submersible, 1964-1965

First assessment of the proposal by Prof. Van Dover -- John Vardalas (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Below I've posted Prof. Van Dover's answers to questions posed to her regarding this proposal.

Dr. Cindy Van Dover is the Harvey W. Smith professor of Biological Oceanography at Duke University. In her career, she made nearly 100 dives to the deep seabed, including 48 dives as Pilot-in-Command of Alvin. She has also been an early adopter of deep-submergence technology, including the ROV Jason, the AUV Sentry, and telepresence, and has served as Chief Scientist on numerous deep-sea expeditions. In recent years, she has become a leader in the emergent field of deep-sea environmental management, particularly in the context of deep-sea mining.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

a) Has the proposer established clear historical significance?

Prof. Van Dover's answer:

"YES. The historical narrative clearly illustrates how Alvin has been (and continues to be) transformational, contributing to transdisciplinary advances in science and engineering, and to unsurpassed leadership in access to the seabed for the benefit of society for decades. The vehicle itself is symbolic of the creativity and talent of its designers, operators, and users. Engineered Alvin systems have served as the basis for design of the other vehicles in the global human-occupied submersible research fleet. The entire field of deep-submergence science was enabled by Alvin engineers and operations teams and initiated by the Alvin science users. Deep-diving research ROVs that now dominate deep-ocean research were derivatives of Alvin engineering and science advances. I would add that an important Alvin legacy is that the submarine inspired and continues to inspire generations of deep-sea engineers and scientists. The list of scientists who have dived in Alvin includes a Who’s Who of leaders in the field."

b) Are their arguments well developed and technically strong?

Prof. Van Dover's answer:

"YES. The engineering advances are especially well described and compelling in their diversity (e.g., hull manufacture, syntactic foam design, navigation, underwater cameras, hull penetrators, safety design). Discovery of hydrothermal vents absolutely changed how we think about adaptations of organisms to environmental extremes, the origin of Life on Earth, and the potential for life on other planets. This is the most significant example of fundamental scientific knowledge enabled by Alvin and is appropriately highlighted in the proposal."

c) In your view, is the wording of the citation below accurate? YES.

Prof. Van Dover's answer:

"YES"

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) commissioned ALVIN, the world’s first mobile, untethered, crewed, deep-sea submersible in 1964. Navy certified in 1965, engineers and scientists at WHOI pioneered innovations in deep-sea acoustical navigation, communications, photography and lighting, and life support systems. ALVIN was instrumental in recovering a lost H-bomb, photographing RMS Titanic, creating the field of hyperbaric microbiology and by its discoveries of hydrothermal vents, [which] revolutionized our understanding of life’s origins.

d) Do the arguments in the proposal fully support the above citation?

Prof. Van Dover's answer:

"Yes. Each fact in the citation immediately above is well documented in the proposal text."

e) Finally, have the proposers provided adequate supporting references to support the claims and arguments?

Prof. Van Dover's answer:

"Yes. Water Baby by Victoria Kaharl is cited; it is a landmark account of the history of Alvin that benefitted from and synthesized many hours of interviews with engineers and scientists at the time (late 1980s). The supporting texts and citations in the proposal are pertinent and include excerpts from dozens of peer-reviewed publications that report on and give authority to major engineering and scientific advances."

f) Are important references missing?

Prof. Van Dover's answer:

"No. But I do want to add that Alvin’s work has been featured in innumerable documentaries, newspaper and magazine articles, novels, etc. The vehicle and its work have been celebrated worldwide, for decades, for many reasons."

Second Assessment from Dr. Robert Ballard -- John Vardalas (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Below I've posted Dr. Ballard's assessment of this Milestone proposal as communicated to me. Dr. Ballard is an eminent oceanographer and renowned deep sea explorer. He has also been a pioneer in deep sea archaeology. He started the Center for Ocean Exploration and Archaeological Oceanography and is Director of the Institute for Archaeological Oceanography.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear John,

Proposal looks great.

The only comment deals with the discovery of the first hydrothermal vents, which were discovered by Woods Hole towed camera system ANGUS, which detected the temperature anomaly while at the same time took pictures of the cloudy water coming out of an underwater vent surrounded by giant clams. ALVIN was vectored to that location the following day. This discovery was published in WHOI’s Oceanus Magazine entitled “Notes on a major oceanographic find”, Oceanus, v. 20, p. 35-44.

ANGUS and later ARGO working with ALVIN proved to be a powerful “tag team” of unmanned and manned technologies in WHOI’s deep submergence tool box resulting in the discovery and documentation of hydrothermal vents, high temperature “Black Smokers”, and the RMS TITANIC.

Hope this helps.

RDB

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Third Assessment of Proposal by Victoria Kaharl -- John Vardalas (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm submitting this review, verbatim, on behalf of Victoria Kaharl. She is an award-winning science writer and author of "Water Baby, The Story of Alvin", published by Oxford University Press. To date, "Water Baby" is the most extensive history on Alvin.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

RE: http://ieeemilestones.ethw.org/Milestone-Proposal:ALVIN:_Deep-Sea_Research_Submersible,_1964-1965

Year or range of years in which the achievement occurred: 1974 to 1985 Alvin was commissioned in 1964.

Title of the proposed milestone: ALVIN: Deep-Sea Research Submersible, 1974-1985 Wrong dates. See above.

In the interests of clarity and proper emphasis, I suggest the following for the IEEE plaque:

"DSRV Alvin (1964-present) is a national facility (funded by the US Navy, NSF and NOAA), operated by WHOI for the U.S. oceanographic research community. Alvin was the world’s first deep-sea submarine. Earlier untethered craft could not go as deep; the bathyscaphes went deeper but could not move about freely. Alvin changed our understanding of the world and led to new fields of scientific inquiry and innovations in engineering. It set the standards for operating in the deep sea. Submersibles that followed benefited from the day-to-day operations of this pioneering craft, and the ingenuity and vision of those who operated and maintained it and dived in it to do what was once impossible— explore the deep sea, which remains a vast frontier".

Please give the address(es) of the plaque site(s) (GPS coordinates if you have them). Also please give the details of the mounting, i.e. on the outside of the building, in the ground floor entrance hall, on a plinth on the grounds, etc. If visitors to the plaque site will need to go through security, or make an appointment, please give the contact information visitors will need. Smith Laboratory of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution where Alvin was designed, taken to sea and deployed…

Alvin was not designed at WHOI. Alvin was designed by Harold Froehlich, an aeronautical engineer at General Mills in Minneapolis. Litton Industries bought the engineering part of General Mills in the summer of 1963. Thus it was ’Litton,’ not ‘General Mills’ on Alvin’s sail when it was commissioned in Woods Hole in 1964.

Alvin was named for Allyn Vine

If anyone had wanted to name this craft after Allyn, it would have been called the Allyn Collins Vine.

What is the historical significance of the work (its technological, scientific, or social importance)?

ALVIN was the first untethered and fully mobile human occupied deep-ocean diving research vehicle. The bathyscaph Trieste was earlier, 1960, (and deeper) but was practically more of an elevator. The Trieste was not the first bathyscaphe. Its creator Auguste Piccard also designed and built (1932) an aeronautical version that went 54,400 feet into the atmosphere. Both of these craft (air and sea) used a round passenger sphere and Plexiglas (methylmethacrylate) conical ports. Both of these were a part of Alvin’s design.

Fourth Assessment of the proposal from Dr. Don Walsh, Captain USN (Ret.) -- John Vardalas (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Below is Dr. Walsh's assessment which I received in an email from him. I'm posting it verbatim. Dr. Walsh has had a long an distinguished career in the design, manufacture, and operation of submersible systems. A retired naval officer (submarines) he was designated U.S. Navy deep submersible pilot #1 in the early 1970s.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

15 February 2021

From: Don Walsh

To: IEEE Historical Committee

Subj: IEEE Historical Recognition for the Manned Submersible ALVIN

Ref: Email from Professor John Vardalas to me dated 15 January 2021

Thank you for inviting me to comment on the nomination of Woods Hole’s submersible ALVIN for recognition by the IEEE’s Milestones Program. The opinions given here are informed by my being active in the deep submergence community since 1959.

I believe ALVIN and the Woods Hole staff that supported it for nearly six decades are very deserving of this recognition. It’s long overdue considering the major scientific contributions facilitated by this pioneering manned submersible.

I have looked at the evaluation criteria and will address the following categories listed in Dr. Vardalas’ email:

a) Has the proposer established clear historical significance?

Yes, for the importance of ALVIN’s work at WHOI, and its general contribution to the marine sciences. However, it fails to recognize significant earlier scientific work by earlier manned submersibles. There seems to be a subtle theme that in situ oceanographic work began with the advent of ALVIN. This is historically incorrect.

b) Are their arguments well developed and technically strong?

Yes, just incomplete. Although I believe that the cites of published results of research facilitated by ALVIN is quite complete and compelling.

c) In your view, is the wording of the citation below accurate?

Mostly but it is historically incorrect. Please see the part that I’ve hghlighted in [bold]:

"Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) commissioned ALVIN, the world’s first mobile, untethered, crewed, deep-sea submersible in 1964. Navy certified in 1965, engineers and scientists at WHOI pioneered innovations in deep-sea acoustical navigation, communications, photography and lighting, and life support systems. ALVIN was instrumental in recovering a lost H-bomb, photographing RMS Titanic, creating the field of hyperbaric microbiology and by its discoveries of hydrothermal vents, revolutionized our understanding of life’s origins"

In claiming “the world’s first…”, I assume the nominator meant only for manned submersibles used for scientific research. But by the completion of ALVIN 1964-1965, worldwide there were nearly two dozen others in operation. They were a mix of uses including proof-of-concept, in situ work tasks or for military missions. Of that number perhaps half of them were doing scientific work, ALVIN was far from being the first.

I have gone into my 60+ years manned submersible archive and offer the following examples of pre-ALVIN uses of manned submersibles for in situ science:

1. William Beebe’s dives with his Bathysphere, 1930-1934. See Beebe, “Half Mile Down”, 1934. This was a cable lowered manned vehicle. He and Otis Barton were the first ‘hydronauts’.

2. In 1953 the French Navy bathyscaph FNRS-3 did scientific dives mostly for biological research. See Houot and Willm “2000 Fathoms Down in the Bathyscaphe”, 1955.

3. From 1953-1960 the FNRS-3 made a total of 57 scientific dives. See Jarry, “L’Aventure des Bathyscaphes”, 2003.

4. In 1956 the Piccard bathyscaph Trieste did six scientific dives for “biological observations”. See Piccard and Dietz, “Seven Miles Down”, 1961.

5. In 1957, Trieste made 17 dives sponsored by ONR conducting scientific observations for biology, acoustics, geology, light penetration and gravity. Piccard and Dietz Ibid.

6. From 1959-1960, now the US Navy owned Trieste made 7 scientific dives as part of Project Nekton. Purposes of those dives was biological and acoustics research. Piccard and Dietz ibid.

7. Although the nominator characterizes the Navy’s Bathyscaph Trieste as “…more of an elevator…”, that’s not correct. It did some serious scientific work from 1962-1963, while making dives off San Diego. Some examples are in situ gravimeter measurements (Mackenzie NEL), vertical sound velocity profiles (Mackenzie), earth’s background vibration (Bradner Scripps), ichthyology of the San Diego Trough (Hubbs Scripps), identifying the makeup of the deep scattering layer (Barham Cal State San Diego) and microcurrents at the seafloor (La Fond NEL). I was the pilot on several of these dives.

8. During 1962-1974, the French Navy’s second bathyscaph, Archimede made 121 scientific dives. Jarry ibid. Also DeLauze, “Un Conquerant Sous La Mer”,1997.

This is not intended to be a definitive timeline; just a few examples of work done prior to ALVIN becoming operational. As shown, the first manned submersible dives for science began a full decade (or three if you include Beebe) before ALVIN was first put into the water in 1964 and nearly two decades prior to the Nominator’s 1974 date used by him as the beginning of ALVIN’s scientific life that’s cited in the nomination.

d) Do the arguments in the proposal fully support the above citation?

Yes, other than the historical misstatement as to ALVIN’s being the world’s first untethered, manned submersible and the implication that it was also first in doing ‘real’ scientific work in the ocean. I have given the historical timeline above simply to support my assertion about historical accuracy...

e) Finally, have the proposers provided the needed references to support their claims and arguments? Are important references missing? Do any of the references have credibility issues?

Yes, I believe that the listing of cites is more than sufficient to support the nomination.

Under “What obstacles (technical, political, geographic) needed to be overcome” (page 4), there is another historical error. The nominator writes that ROV’s and AUV’s “…came along in 1976 and later…”. In fact, the first large scale ROV developments began at the Naval Undersea Center at San Diego about 1963 or 1964.

On page 8 under “Supporting Materials….”, paragraph 1.) says, “Bathyscaphs have been lowered to great depths…” Bathyscaphs are free swimming while bathyspheres are cable lowered. Maybe this is a typo?

The text also remarks on their limited maneuvering ability. That was somewhat true with Trieste although it successfully did the first forensic dives on the sunken nuclear submarine Thresher in 1963. The successor, Trieste II had greater maneuverability as was demonstrated with its successful diving operations at the wreck site of the nuclear submarine Scorpion in 1968…

One final comment/question. Why did the nomination only consider ALVIN’s operations from 1974-1985? Yes, the submersible’s first years were devoted to testing as well as learning how operate and support it. However according to Kaharl’s book “Water Baby”, there were scientific dives prior to 1974. Perhaps “1974” is a typo?

In summary, since history is the essence of this nomination, then it’s important that it be as correct as possible. The nomination of ALVIN should not imply that it was first in doing significant in situ research. Yet in reading through the nomination this seems to be the case. Clearly, ALVIN was the best, most productive and longest operating of any manned submersibles doing deep ocean research. And there is no second place. But, for the sake of historical accuracy, the pioneering work of other researchers and their submersibles must be taken into account.