New Generation Polar Research Vessel Newsletter

Home , Research vessel

U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration (Continued from page 7) what services must be provided by this fleet. Should this fleet be dedicated to science or are Office of Shipbuilding and Marine Technology U.S. Polar Icebreakers: Future Needs and Possible New Policy there other more pressing national needs? Has the National need changed enough since the end of the cold war that maintaining a polar fleet as a New Generation tablished a committee for the “Assessment of National Asset is not necessary? The NAS is U.S. Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Roles and sorting out such issues. There are many possible Polar Research Vessel Future Needs” and held its first fact-finding options and outcomes of the NAS study. meeting on August 24 and 25, 2005. The Issue 3 September 2005 USCG and NSF were the primary presenters. The NAS is scheduled to deliver a preliminary Highlights The Arctic Research Commission and the OPP report in November 2005. If major shifts in cur- PRV Project Studies Continue Advisory Subcommittee also made presenta- This newsletter describes rent operating procedures are recommended, it is the 2005 project studies tions. The charge to NAS and the membership likely that a White House level decision (A Presi- and includes the latest art- The objectives of this year’s efforts quirements and (2) complete a series of the Committee may be found at the NAS dential Decision Directive (PDD)) may be made. ist’s rendering of the PRV, are to complete an assessment of ves- of technical studies that result in the web site: http://www.nationalacademies.org/ the project schedules, and sel characteristics, size, and cost that characteristics of a feasible vessel the results of a mission satisfy both the scientific and opera- with a construction cost estimate. and then clicking on “Current Projects” then What does all this mean to the PRV? It means sensitivity study. Addition- search for “Icebreaker”. that some PRV technical studies and acquisition ally, there are articles on tional requirements. With this infor- must await the results of the NAS study and any the surge of new construc- mation, both the science community An artist rendering of the stern- It is expected that the findings and recommen- tion activity for very capa- and National Science Foundation quarter view of the PRV is shown be- White House directives to be issued. These deci- ble commercial icebreakers dations of the NAS Committee will be far sions and directions should be made in fiscal year and the initiation of a study (NSF) management can make value low. It incorporates recent comments reaching. The future needs for the Nation's po- 2006 (October 1, 2005—September 30, 2006). by the National Academies judgments on the need to continue or of the Antarctic Research Vessel lar icebreaking fleet will depend heavily upon of Science to assess the revise the requirements for the new Oversight Committee – Scientific future role of U.S. Coast generation Polar Research Vessel Standing Committee – Polar Research Guard icebreakers. (PRV). Specifically, the project Vessel (ARVOC-SSC-PRV) on the Additional information on team’s goals are to: (1) define and original concept. In particular, the the PRV can be found on justify scientific and operational re- (Continued on page 2) the web site: Visit the PRV web site at: www.polar.org/prv Acronyms www.polar.org/prv As always, your comments on the newsletter are wel- ARVOC Antarctic Research Vessel Oversight comed. Committee AUV Autonomous Underwater Vehicle PRV Project Team E-Mail Addresses HP Horsepower JPC Jumbo Piston Coring Al Sutherland NSF [email protected] This issue: MARAD Maritime Administration Jim Holik RPSC [email protected] MW Megawatt 2005 PRV Project Paul Olsgaard RPSC [email protected] 1 NAS National Academies of Science Studies Continue Skip Owen RPSC [email protected] NBP Nathaniel B. Palmer Dick Voelker MARAD [email protected] Mission Sensitivity NSF National Science Foundation 3 Study Completed OPP Office of Polar Programs Jim St. John STC [email protected] Alex Iyerusalimskiy STC [email protected] PDD Presidential Decision Directive Powerful Icebreakers PRV Polar Research Vessel David Karnes STC [email protected] Under Construction 4 RFP Request for Proposals ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle PRV Timeline 5 RPSC Raytheon Polar Services Company U.S. Polar Icebreakers: SSC-PRV Scientific Standing Committee for PRV Newsletter comments and Future Needs and Pos- 6 distribution inquiries: MARAD point of contact STC Science and Technology Corporation sible New Policy [email protected] USCG United States Coast Guard Acronyms 8 Artist’s rendering of Polar Research Vessel PAGE 2 NEW GENERATION POLAR RESEARCH VESSEL ISSUE 3 ISSUE 3 NEW GENERATION POLAR RESEARCH VESSEL PAGE 7

(Continued from page 3) The 80 m (262.4 ft) JPC is the primary example of PRV Mission Sensitivity Study Completed PRV Mission Sensitivity Study Completed this. For a 0.9 m (3 ft) icebreaking baseline ship, adding only the 80 m JPC requirement greatly af- fects the cost because the ship must be significantly A sensitivity study of vessel construction cost for ance of 60 days, a 0.9 m (3 ft) icebreaking capabil- The sensitivity study for the PRV revealed that longer to accommodate the capability. However, a various mission requirements was recently com- ity, and is compared to the existing research vessel some of the mission requirements are associated larger ship, such as one with 1.4 m (4.5 ft) ice- pleted. Basically, the synthesis model allows the Nathaniel B. Palmer. New scientific mission/capa- with no significant increase in construction cost. breaking capability, already has the length required determination of vessel characteristics and an esti- bility was then examined for bottom mapping (box For example, the vessel has sufficient length for for the 80 m JPC and has little affect on construc- mate of vessel costs without going into many naval keel), double hull, diesel emission reduction, jumbo the 50 m (164 ft) JPC operations, excluding equip- tion cost. architectural calculations. A special feature of the piston coring (JPC) of 50 m (164 ft) and 80 m (262 ment cost or the impact its weight has on stability model is that it allows both single and multiple sets ft) capability, geotechnical drilling, 80-day endur- (they were not considered in this model). There is In addition to assessing the cost for individual re- of scientific and operational missions to be com- ance, autonomous underwater vehicle/remotely op- no added cost for including this requirement. In- quirements, many cases were examined for various pared. erated vehicle (AUV/ROV) operations through a terestingly, a box keel for enhanced bottom map- feature combinations. For example, the vessel char- moon pool, accommodations for 50 scientists, and ping capability in open water and during icebreak- acteristics needed to satisfy 1.4 m (4.5 ft) icebreak- As shown below, the sensitivity model was system- icebreaking capability of 1.2 m (4 ft) and 1.4 m (4.5 ing actually reduces the vessel construction cost by ing capability, resulted in a cost increase of less atically varied for several different configurations of ft). effectively providing displacement without the ac- than one-half of one percent for inclusion of a dou- science features and icebreaking capabilities. The companying structural weight. ble hull, a moon pool, 50 m JPC, a box keel, reduc- baseline ship accommodates 37 scientists, an endur- (Continued on page 6) ing diesel emissions, and geotechnical drilling. In contrast, the mission requirement for increasing level icebreaking capability has a significant con- Likewise, a cost increase of 17 percent over the Significance of Individual Mission Requirements on Construction Cost struction cost increase. The thicker the ice a ship single mission requirement of 1.4 m (4.5 ft) ice- $200.0 must break, the more expensive its construction breaking provided a vessel that satisfied all scien- cost. Other mission requirements such as weight tific and operational needs. $180.0 allowances for geotechnical drilling capability, inclusion of a double hull, and an expanded moon These and other cases were examined and are in a $160.0 pool contribute less to the vessel cost. In some report that will be available on the PRV web site: cases, a mission requirement can either affect the www.polar.org/prv. $140.0 vessel construction cost significantly or not at all. $120.0 U.S. Polar Icebreakers: Future Needs and $100.0 Possible New Policy $80.0

($ Millions of Dollars) $60.0 A number of studies by federal agencies are exam- breakers provide a capability for national defense, ining the future need and role of U.S. polar ice- search and rescue, maritime law enforcement, ma- $40.0 breakers. One of these studies is being conducted rine environmental protection, scientific research, Construction Cost Estimate by the National Academies of Science (NAS) with and logistics support. In the Antarctic, the USCG $20.0 interim results scheduled for later this year. The has two ships that normally operate in the Southern $0.0

l NAS study will assess the role of the U.S. Coast Ocean, the Polar Star (commissioned in 1976) and l e g e r e e e s r n . s g g s s o i c r e el n o l n n n Guard (USCG) polar icebreakers in supporting U.S. the Polar Sea (commissioned in 1978). These are s e l n e s i i o i o t e K n ) i C r a i k i l es C p ) s k l l i s n m r l t i V D t a a operations in the Antarctic and the Arctic, including the two most powerful in the USCG icebreaker x e s n u O o a u D i e o to 0 l o n e e d to d d r i H s 5 V e r n B m i a n P o i b scenarios for continuing those activities as well as fleet. The newest and most technologically ad- i u s m b l ed i c e E i E O c e l c P n m e e G 0 n S c b t P I alternative approaches. vanced U.S. polar icebreaker, the Healy s u o 8 y /R o o h m Ic c u a o 0 a us b c V o ti o b m ed D c 5 (commissioned in 2000), was specifically designed B c m U M D m te - ( r r R ha u c 2 m ( o 0 A . A x J u A o In this regard, it should be noted that since 1965, to support a wide range of scientific research activi- e 8 f 1 .4 E J the USCG has been the principal provider of polar ties and operates primarily in the Arctic. G 1 icebreaking services for the Nation. These ice- Enhanced Science and Operational Capability PAGE 4 NEW GENERATION POLAR RESEARCH VESSEL ISSUE 3 PAGE 5 NEW GENERATION POLAR RESEARCH VESSEL ISSUE 3 Powerful Icebreakers Under Construction PRV Timeline

International shipyards are busy building very ca- described in the table below. They include ice- A representative schedule for the PRV has been performed; a number of studies related to the hull, pable icebreaking vessels to support petroleum de- breaking supply boats, icebreaking tugs, an ice- developed based on one of several possible pro- machinery, laboratory arrangements, environmental velopment and other commercial activity in the breaking shuttle tanker, and an icebreaking con- curement strategies. In particular, the below protection, and the like, are conducted; and guid- Russian Arctic. Many of these vessels have ice- tainership. Delivery of these vessels was sched- schedule is based on a strategy of using Technical ance plans and specifications are developed. breaking capability of 1.5 m (5 ft) at 3 knot speed uled as early as May 2005 and as late as 2007. As Specifications with guidance drawings of the ves- and have diesel-electric machinery plants with pod- a result, there will be a significant increase in pow- sel. This approach is based on incorporating the Alternate procurement strategies can either ded propulsion systems. erful commercial icebreaking ships over the next experience, knowledge, and preferences gained lengthen or shorten the timeline. In particular, a

two years and it will be of great interest to learn of from prior polar science operations while still al- performance-only based technical specification Several of these powerful icebreaking ships are their operational performance in ice. lowing innovation on the part of the vessel owner would probably result in a one year shorter time and shipbuilder. In essence, this strategy pro- frame for vessel delivery. However, a contract de- Supply Boat1 Standby and vides a framework or guidance for the final design technical specification with drawings would Purpose Tug3 Containership4 Shuttle Tanker5 (shown below) Supply Vessel2 sign by the shipyard and vessel construction. add about another two years before delivery of the vessel and severely limit changes to the design after Length, 91.5 m 300 ft 99.9 m 328 ft 71.0 m 233 ft 168.6 m 553 ft 257.0 m 853 ft The pre-RFP (Request for Proposal) development contract award. Overall activities, where the project is today, takes a little Beam 19.0 m 62 ft 21.2 m 70 ft 17.0 m 56 ft 23.1 m 76 ft 34.0 m 112 ft over two years to complete. It is during this time Additional details regarding the PRV project sched- Draft 8.3 m 27 ft 7.5 m 25 ft 6.5 m 21 ft 9.0 m 30 ft 13.6 m 45 ft period that the scientific and operational require- ule are in the report PRV Project Master Plan and Icebreaking ments are finalized; a procurement strategy is de- will be available on the project web site: 1.5 m 5 ft 1.5 m 5 ft 1.5 m 5 ft 1.5 m 5 ft 1.2 m 4 ft @ 3 kts veloped; construction cost sensitivity studies are www.polar.org/prv. Propulsion 16.6 MW 13 MW 11 MW 22 MW 17 MW Power YEAR Propulsors Mechanical pods Electric pods Electric pods Electric pods Electric pods ACTIVITY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Pre-RFP Development No. of Pro- 2 2 2 2 2 pulsors Compile RFP Documents and Issue Footnotes to table are on bottom of page 5 Bidding, Evaluation, and Contract Award

Shipyard Design and Construction

Acceptance Trials

Transit to Southern Hemisphere Port

Footnotes for Page 4 Table of Powerful Icebreakers Under Construction 1Owner: Swine Pacific Offshore, Singapore; Shipyard: Aker Langston, Norway; Operating Area: Sakhalin, Russia; 3 vessels; Delivery: TBD 2Owner: Far Eastern Shipping Company (FESCO), Russia; Shipyard: Aker Finnyards, Finland; Operating Area: Sakhalin Island (Okhotsk Sea); Delivery: 2005 3Owner: Primorsk Shipping Corporation; Operator: Rieber Shipping AS; Shipyard: Aker Langsten; Operating Area: Dekastri Oil Terminal, Sakhalin; Delivery: 2006 4Owner: MMC Norilsk, Russia; Shipyard: Aker Finnyards, Finland; Operating Area: Northern Sea Route of Russia; Delivery: 2006 5Owner: ZAO Sevmorneftegaz, Russia; Shipyard: FSVE Admirality St. Peterburg, Russia; Operating Area: Prirazlomnoye Oil Three supply boats with 1.5 m (5 ft) icebreaking capability are being built in Norway. field, Arctic Ocean; 2 Ships; Delivery: 2007 and 2008 The UT 758 ICE was designed by Rolls Royce Marine AS PAGE 4 NEW GENERATION POLAR RESEARCH VESSEL ISSUE 3 PAGE 5 NEW GENERATION POLAR RESEARCH VESSEL ISSUE 3 Powerful Icebreakers Under Construction PRV Timeline

Shipyard Design and Construction

Acceptance Trials

Transit to Southern Hemisphere Port

Footnotes for Page 4 Table of Powerful Icebreakers Under Construction 1Owner: Swine Pacific Offshore, Singapore; Shipyard: Aker Langston, Norway; Operating Area: Sakhalin, Russia; 3 vessels; Delivery: TBD 2Owner: Far Eastern Shipping Company (FESCO), Russia; Shipyard: Aker Finnyards, Finland; Operating Area: Sakhalin Island (Okhotsk Sea); Delivery: 2005 3Owner: Primorsk Shipping Corporation; Operator: Rieber Shipping AS; Shipyard: Aker Langsten; Operating Area: Dekastri Oil Terminal, Sakhalin; Delivery: 2006 4Owner: MMC Norilsk, Russia; Shipyard: Aker Finnyards, Finland; Operating Area: Northern Sea Route of Russia; Delivery: 2006 5Owner: ZAO Sevmorneftegaz, Russia; Shipyard: FSVE Admirality St. Peterburg, Russia; Operating Area: Prirazlomnoye Oil Three supply boats with 1.5 m (5 ft) icebreaking capability are being built in Norway. field, Arctic Ocean; 2 Ships; Delivery: 2007 and 2008 The UT 758 ICE was designed by Rolls Royce Marine AS ISSUE 3 NEW GENERATION POLAR RESEARCH VESSEL PAGE 6 PAGE 3 NEW GENERATION POLAR RESEARCH VESSEL ISSUE 3

l NAS study will assess the role of the U.S. Coast Ocean, the Polar Star (commissioned in 1976) and l e g e r e e e s r n . s g g s s o i c r e el n o l n n n Guard (USCG) polar icebreakers in supporting U.S. the Polar Sea (commissioned in 1978). These are s e l n e s i i o i o t e K n ) i C r a i k i l es C p ) s k l l i s n m r l t i V D t a a operations in the Antarctic and the Arctic, including the two most powerful in the USCG icebreaker x e s n u O o a u D i e o to 0 l o n e e d to d d r i H s 5 V e r n B m i a n P o i b scenarios for continuing those activities as well as fleet. The newest and most technologically ad- i u s m b l ed i c e E i E O c e l c P n m e e G 0 n S c b t P I alternative approaches. vanced U.S. polar icebreaker, the Healy s u o 8 y /R o o h m Ic c u a o 0 a us b c V o ti o b m ed D c 5 (commissioned in 2000), was specifically designed B c m U M D m te - ( r r R ha u c 2 m ( o 0 A . A x J u A o In this regard, it should be noted that since 1965, to support a wide range of scientific research activi- e 8 f 1 .4 E J the USCG has been the principal provider of polar ties and operates primarily in the Arctic. G 1 icebreaking services for the Nation. These ice- Enhanced Science and Operational Capability PAGE 2 NEW GENERATION POLAR RESEARCH VESSEL ISSUE 3 ISSUE 3 NEW GENERATION POLAR RESEARCH VESSEL PAGE 7

(Continued from page 1) Those stakeholders reliant on icebreaker support are unless Krasin cannot do the icebreaking mission In calendar year 2005, the science requirements facing many challenges, particularly the NSF which alone. PRV Project Studies Continue will be documented and compiled in a report that requires the use of the aging POLAR Class ice- justifies specific needs and uses of the vessel. breakers that serve in the Antarctic. An example of In the spring of 2005, the Advisory Committee to committee determined that some of the science These requirements will cover a wide spectrum of this occurred in the 2005 Austral Summer when NSF’s Office of Polar Programs (OPP) formed a and operational requirements that were originally scientific disciplines and operational requirements. two icebreakers were needed for the McMurdo subcommittee to review and advise OPP on the proposed could be modified to produce a better Additionally, a definition of acoustical require- break-in (as they have been since 2002). The Polar U.S. Antarctic Program resupply missions. Obvi- and more useful configuration. ments for the vessel will be determined including Sea, however, was undergoing extensive mainte- ously, much of the focus was on icebreakers, but the frequency range and maximum tolerable noise nance and was unable to assist. the Committee had a number of suggestions that Some of the suggested changes that have been level for all sensors including towing of seismic made include: provision for a geotechnical drill- instrumentation. Also, the station keeping require- ing capability external to the superstructure with ments for the conduct of geotechnical drilling shall a smaller moon pool; provision for a 50 m Jumbo be specified including the upper limit of environ- Piston Coring capability as shown by the recess mental conditions and vessel movement. Clearly on the starboard side midship with suitable work- defined operational uses for the moon pool and ing area aft; a reconfigured port side helicopter support equipment as well as space requirements landing deck and hangar (space for two); and sci- on all decks will be developed. entific van storage is provided on the main deck below the helicopter deck. In 2005, technical studies will include a feasibility- level study of the vessel with appropriate deck ar- Other requirements continue to be met and in- rangements, outboard profile, lines drawing, and a clude an icebreaking capability of 1.4 m (4.5 ft), vessel construction cost estimate. As part of this enhanced bathymetry in ice with a box keel (see technical effort, standard one- and two-person Newsletter No. 2), reductions in ship generated cabin arrangements for scientists will be prepared. noise, significantly lower emissions from diesel Justification for the use of diesel-electric propul- engines, a double hull, and a clear view aft from sion systems will be documented by citing the ad- USCGC Healy (WAGB-20) underway to commence the starboard bridge wing control station to the vantages of this system over diesel-geared systems Arctic West East Summer (AWES) 2005 deploy- main deck, to name a few. for reduction of ship generated noise. ment. Principal characteristics and capabilities can be found at www.uscg.mil/pacarea/healy All of the changes and original requirements con- Information on electric propulsion alternatives will tinue to be accommodated on a vessel having the be compiled and include the use of electric and following characteristics: mechanical pods and conventional electric motors USCGC Polar Star (WAGB-10) and USCGC Polar Sea (WAGB-11) with propeller shafting. Two propulsion machin- at Murdo Station, Antarctica Length Overall 115.3 m 378.4 ft ery studies, including arrangements, will be made Principal characteristics and capabilities can be found at Length, Water Line 103.9 m 340.9 ft www.uscg.mil/pacarea/iceops/shipinfo.htm Beam 22.7 m 74.5 ft to compare a podded system and a traditional elec- Draft 9.0 m 29.6 ft trical system with line shafting. Displacement 11,200 MT 11,000 LT The NSF, therefore, chartered the Russian ice- would reduce the sole dependence in icebreakers Propulsive Horsepower 16.8 MW 22,400 HP breaker Krasin to provide this assistance. for resupply. The Committee indicated, (total, twin propellers) “commercial business models (possibly involving Deliverables from Calendar Year 2005 Project Studies Include: For the 2006 Austral Summer, NSF has chartered the private sector) should be examined considering the Krasin. This year, however, due to reliability procurement and/or operation of (an) icebreaker.” • Documentation and justification for science and operational requirements and economic issues with the Polar Star, the Krasin A copy of the report may be found at NSF OPP’s • Vessel dimensions and characteristics that satisfy the requirements will be the primary icebreaker and the Polar Star web site: http://www.nsf.gov/dir/index.jsp?org=opp • Lines plan and hydrostatics (again the only USCG icebreaker available) will be and then clicking on “Report of the Subcommittee • Outboard profile and deck plans including laboratories used as a backup in the event the Krasin cannot on Antarctic Program Resupply”. • Standard scientist cabin plan complete the break-in on her own. The Polar Star • Construction cost estimate is not expected to be deployed to the Antarctic In this connection a few months ago, the NAS es- • Initial set of vessel specifications based on feasibility studies (Continued on page 8) U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration (Continued from page 7) what services must be provided by this fleet. Should this fleet be dedicated to science or are Office of Shipbuilding and Marine Technology U.S. Polar Icebreakers: Future Needs and Possible New Policy there other more pressing national needs? Has the National need changed enough since the end of the cold war that maintaining a polar fleet as a New Generation tablished a committee for the “Assessment of National Asset is not necessary? The NAS is U.S. Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Roles and sorting out such issues. There are many possible Polar Research Vessel Future Needs” and held its first fact-finding options and outcomes of the NAS study. meeting on August 24 and 25, 2005. The Issue 3 September 2005 USCG and NSF were the primary presenters. The NAS is scheduled to deliver a preliminary Highlights The Arctic Research Commission and the OPP report in November 2005. If major shifts in cur- PRV Project Studies Continue Advisory Subcommittee also made presenta- This newsletter describes rent operating procedures are recommended, it is the 2005 project studies tions. The charge to NAS and the membership likely that a White House level decision (A Presi- and includes the latest art- The objectives of this year’s efforts quirements and (2) complete a series of the Committee may be found at the NAS dential Decision Directive (PDD)) may be made. ist’s rendering of the PRV, are to complete an assessment of ves- of technical studies that result in the web site: http://www.nationalacademies.org/ the project schedules, and sel characteristics, size, and cost that characteristics of a feasible vessel the results of a mission satisfy both the scientific and opera- with a construction cost estimate. and then clicking on “Current Projects” then What does all this mean to the PRV? It means sensitivity study. Addition- search for “Icebreaker”. that some PRV technical studies and acquisition ally, there are articles on tional requirements. With this infor- must await the results of the NAS study and any the surge of new construc- mation, both the science community An artist rendering of the stern- It is expected that the findings and recommen- tion activity for very capa- and National Science Foundation quarter view of the PRV is shown be- White House directives to be issued. These deci- ble commercial icebreakers dations of the NAS Committee will be far sions and directions should be made in fiscal year and the initiation of a study (NSF) management can make value low. It incorporates recent comments reaching. The future needs for the Nation's po- 2006 (October 1, 2005—September 30, 2006). by the National Academies judgments on the need to continue or of the Antarctic Research Vessel lar icebreaking fleet will depend heavily upon of Science to assess the revise the requirements for the new Oversight Committee – Scientific future role of U.S. Coast generation Polar Research Vessel Standing Committee – Polar Research Guard icebreakers. (PRV). Specifically, the project Vessel (ARVOC-SSC-PRV) on the Additional information on team’s goals are to: (1) define and original concept. In particular, the the PRV can be found on justify scientific and operational re- (Continued on page 2) the web site: Visit the PRV web site at: www.polar.org/prv Acronyms www.polar.org/prv As always, your comments on the newsletter are wel- ARVOC Antarctic Research Vessel Oversight comed. Committee AUV Autonomous Underwater Vehicle PRV Project Team E-Mail Addresses HP Horsepower JPC Jumbo Piston Coring Al Sutherland NSF [email protected] This issue: MARAD Maritime Administration Jim Holik RPSC [email protected] MW Megawatt 2005 PRV Project Paul Olsgaard RPSC [email protected] 1 NAS National Academies of Science Studies Continue Skip Owen RPSC [email protected] NBP Nathaniel B. Palmer Dick Voelker MARAD [email protected] Mission Sensitivity NSF National Science Foundation 3 Study Completed OPP Office of Polar Programs Jim St. John STC [email protected] Alex Iyerusalimskiy STC [email protected] PDD Presidential Decision Directive Powerful Icebreakers PRV Polar Research Vessel David Karnes STC [email protected] Under Construction 4 RFP Request for Proposals ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle PRV Timeline 5 RPSC Raytheon Polar Services Company U.S. Polar Icebreakers: SSC-PRV Scientific Standing Committee for PRV Newsletter comments and Future Needs and Pos- 6 distribution inquiries: MARAD point of contact STC Science and Technology Corporation sible New Policy [email protected] USCG United States Coast Guard Acronyms 8 Artist’s rendering of Polar Research Vessel