would seriously reduce their utility.
Ifthepatient and/or the child had
died at sea aboard an inadequate DOE vessel,
suite could have developed.
year.
I am afraid a very serious law
I have made this point repeatedly over the last
How long will Brookhaven National Laboratory be required to operate
with a vessel that is inadequate and on ovcasionddangerous/ under existing
sea states?
The answer to question 2 and 3 is therefore clear.
We do not and will
not consider the Liktanur II adequate for the medical missions.
referring to "modifications" of Liktanur II is unclear.
Question 3,
In my discussions
with Roger Ray, I was informed that hold #3 was being considered as a new
living area,
I believe this area is currently the machine shop and tankage.
Supposedly they could be moved elsewhere.
That modification would in no way
change the hull motion in normal winter seas.
It would just allow more room
for berthing the incapacitated scientific party.
An additional rumor I heard
is that the DOE is considering cutting the ship in two, and adding an additional 20' to the hull length.
length by about 17%.
This procedure would increase the current
From an economic standpoint,
unpalatable alternatives.
They are: 1)
very costly and time consuming.
this presents some very
such a major hull modification is
I assume that both the time, and at least
part of the labor and the material costs of this major alteration would be
underwritten by DOE, escalating even further, the expense of this particular
vessel,
It seems analagous to leasing a Volkswagon beetle to use as an
ambulance and then converting it
into a limousine in the last third of its
contract period, only to return the enhanced VW to its rightful owner.
seriously question the wisdom of this option.
I
2) I would assume that the
elongated Liktanur II would cost more, both on the standard per annum rate
plus the added fuel to push 17% greater wetted surface through the water
3Ua7 bg