the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 17 Feb 2025
Science data collection by the New Zealand Defence Force during the 2022 Antarctic Resupply Mission
Abstract. The maiden resupply voyage of HMNZS AOTEAROA to Winter Quarters Bay, McMurdo Sound, provided a vessel of opportunity to complete experimentation in the Ross Sea and Southern Ocean, focused on improving maritime safety. The science programs on the voyage included the deployment of 21 free floating wave buoys, 10 Global Drifters, 2 Argo Floats and 85 expendable bathythermograph profilers. In addition, measurements of meteorological and oceanographic conditions and sea ice characteristics were captured from onboard the ship and augmented with satellite-based synthetic aperture radar captures and high-resolution wave modelling. An aligned experiment was also undertaken to assess the performance of Global Navigation Satellite Systems at high latitudes. The full set of voyage data and instructions for their access are described.
- Preprint
(1248 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 02 Apr 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-8', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Mar 2025
reply
Science data collection by the New Zealand Defence Force during the 2022 Antarctic Resupply Mission
Garrett et al.
The manuscript presents a potentially valuable dataset collected from various sensors during a resupply mission to Antarctica in February 2022. Given the scarcity of data from this region, particularly datasets as comprehensive as the one described, I welcome this contribution and support its publication. However, the manuscript requires substantial revision, as key details and the broader relevance of the dataset are not clearly articulated. In particular:
1. The description of the available data is fragmented and unclear, making it difficult to determine exactly what has been measured. Section 2 outlines the data collection methodology, while Section 3 discusses processing, but neither provides a clear account of the parameters recorded by each sensor. For example, Section 2.1.1 names the commercial models of the marine radar, and Section 3.3 states that radars were used to detect sea ice in the vicinity of the ship. However, neither specifies which parameters were extracted from the radar data. This issue applies to all sensors. To improve clarity, I recommend consolidating relevant information from Sections 2 and 3 into a dedicated section that provides a cohesive overview of the sensors and their outputs. For each sensor, the authors should clearly describe its purpose, operating principle, measured parameters, and acquisition details such as sampling rate. At present, these details are scattered across multiple sections, making comprehension difficult.
2. A summary table listing the sensors, measured parameters, and acquisition frequency (where applicable) would help the reader quickly grasp the dataset’s contents. This would enhance clarity and provide an accessible reference for understanding the scope of the measurements.
3. Section 4 attempts to describe key features of the dataset, but its discussion lacks depth, leaving the reader uncertain about its relevance. Only a limited selection of parameters is covered — for instance, data extracted from optical images and additional sea ice characteristics from the marine radar are not discussed. Furthermore, figures are not explained in sufficient detail; for example, the comparison between measured and modelled wave heights in Fig. 9 is unclear. To strengthen this section, the authors should provide a more comprehensive discussion of the dataset, clearly detailing its features and significance. Since the manuscript is intended to present a dataset, it should offer a thorough account of what the dataset contains and represents. As presented, it is difficult to assess the quality of the overall data product.
Minor corrections:
Line 45: “the distance at which sea ice can be reliably detected is considered to be <1nm”. Do the author mean 1km?
The introduction outlines three topics addressed by the expedition. While the objectives of Topics 2 and 3 (Sections 1.2 and 1.3) are clearly stated, the aim of Topic 1 (Section 1.1) remains vague.
Line 186: there is reference to Figure 2.4, which does not appear to exist. Do the authors instead mean Figure 4?
Paragraph starting at line 190. It is unclear how many buoys have been deployed. It seems a few were deployed temporarily and 15 for long time monitoring. This should be clarified.
Section 2.3 lists several satellite missions, but it is unclear which parameters these satellites are measuring.
Section 3.1 mentions the processing of weather parameters but does not specify which parameters are involved. Moreover, this subsection is only two lines long and lacks meaningful information. The authors should either expand it with relevant details or remove it. The same applies to other similarly brief subsections.
The fonts in Figures 7–9 are unreadable and need to be adjusted for better clarity.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-8-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2025-8', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Mar 2025
reply
Review of “Science data collection by the New Zealand Defence Force during the 2022 Antarctic Resupply Mission”.
General Comments:
The goal of the manuscript is to outline the numerous datasets collected by HMNZS AOTEAROA on its 2022 resupply mission. Overall, the manuscript is well organized and provides a broad overview of the sensors deployed and the datasets collected during the voyage. The problem with the manuscript is that it does not go into enough detail and fails to clearly map the sensors and observations with the datasets that a subsequent user would try to access. Also, the manuscript completely lacks any information on the quality of the observations. There is no discussion of any quality control during the data processing or if any quality flags were applied to the original data or the subsequent products.
Another question I have is where are the raw sensor data archived? Section 3 describes data products (e.g., 10-minute average weather data), but the sensors likely sampled at much higher data rates. Are these original data available anywhere?
The data collected represent a unique data collection in a remote ocean region. They would not be easily repeatable and should be of high value for data reuse. With significant improvement in the data documentation, I suspect this will be a very useful dataset for multiple users working in the Southern Ocean.
The lack of any information on data quality and the incomplete relationship between the sensors described and the available datasets are the primary reasons I am suggesting major revisions.
Specific Comments:
Line 68 – You note the wave buoy here. Please add a short statement focused on the purpose of this buoy in your observing program. For example, how does the wave height impact vessel risk in regions of high vs sparse sea ice?
Section 2.1.3, Table 3 – The level of detail on the meteorological sensors is insufficient to determine the accuracy and precision of the observations. First the sensor package (Observant OIC, OMC) needs to be better documented. After some Google searching, I found https://observator.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Datasheet-OIC-2021-HMS-3.0-Server-V20241003.pdf , though it is not clear from the paper if this is the system in use. The authors should provide a link to the sensor specifications, rated accuracy and precision, and note whether the sensors are “marine grade” and suitable for the harsh environment of the Southern Ocean. Some specific questions a user may have include whether the wind sensor is sonic or mechanical, are the sensors heated to avoid icing, what is the raw sampling rate, etc.
Section 2.1.4, Ship navigation system – Similar to comments on the meteorological systems, what is the sampling rate, accuracy/precision of the data being collected? Does it vary between the 5 data streams in the Lost Penguin experiment? And what specific NMEA sentences are being logged and included in your data product? Note that I could not find the raw navigation data in the file set I downloaded from the Marine Data Archive (https://doi.org/10.14284/666). Is it available?
Section 2.2 – In this section you outline the deployed sensors, but it is not clear if these were just deployments of opportunity or if they are critical to the OP TIO mission. Also, did the authors intend for the data from these deployed sensors to be part of the dataset you are publishing? If so, please make that clear and provide information on how to access the datasets (see below).
2.2.1 – I found some of the Sofar data and Scripps buoy data at (https://doi.org/10.14284/666), but this link only provided data for 3 of 10 Scripps buoys deployed (772, 773, and 802). What happened to the rest of the buoys?
2.2.2 – Where can a user find the Global Drifter Program data? Can you provide the WMO identifiers for the 10 SVP drifters deployed?
2.2.3 – How can a user access the ARGO data? You note it is publicly available, so please provide the data access URL and if possible, some info on how to find the data from the WMO IDs you deployed.
2.2.4 – Where are the remotely-sensed data available? Only at https://oceanum.io/? If so, please describe the difference between what is at https://oceanum.io/ and https://doi.org/10.14284/666 in more detail. It would be great to include a minimal readme file in the zip that can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.14284/666 to describe what is in each datafile.
Section 3 – There are several improvements needed to the Data Processing section. First, the authors need to address the quality of each of the data products in sections 3.1-3.6. If no quality control was done, this needs to be stated. If QC was applied, what techniques were used? How are flagged data handled in creating these products? Are any standards used to describe/document the data quality (e.g., IODE quality control flags, netCDF CF standard names). I also suggest that you state what data files, by name, result from each data processing step. I was not able to find the data files associated with the processing steps in section 3.2, 3.3, or 3.4 at https://doi.org/10.14284/666. Are they only at https://oceanum.io/?
Section 3.1 - How are the measured winds adjusted for ship motion (derivation of true winds)? What equations/methods were used? Were the winds adjusted for ship motion at each sensor observing time and then these adjusted values averaged to 10-minutes? Also, some of the data files do not clearly identify whether the “wind” values are true or ship-relative winds (e.g, optio_10minute_nmea_shipdata.csv).
Section 3.5 – Please provide some more details on what vessel parameters were logged (position, COG, SOG, heading, pitch, roll, heave) and whether the 10-minute values are averages or instantaneous values? Also, what was the raw sampling rate and are the raw navigation data available?
Section 5.3 – Please provide a bit more discussion of the “features” shown in the image (Figure 10). The caption notes ‘ice features’ but since you include the figure, the reader will be interested in whether they represent sea ice, icebergs, etc.
Technical Corrections:
Throughout the document there are numerous acronyms that are not defined. Some may be obvious to some readers, but best practice is to define each at first use. If they are only used once, please just spell out the term.
Line 150 – Please clarify if the optic gyros are part of the IMU.
Line 186 – Change Figure 2.4 to Figure 4.
Figure 4 and 5 – some of the colors (blues/greens) chosen for points/boxes on these plots are hard to see against the blue bathymetry background. Please try some higher contrast colors.
Line 257 – Looks like the “xx” repository details need to be included here.
Line 272 – Is the “return” at the end of this sentence intentional? If so, I found it confusing so please reword. If not, please remove.
Line 286 – Change section heading number to 3.6.
Figure 10 – Please improve the image contrast if possible.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-8-RC2
Data sets
Science data collection by the New Zealand Defence Force during the 2022 Antarctic Resupply Mission S. Garrett et al. https://www.vliz.be/nl/imis?dasid=8539&doiid=979
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 153 | 33 | 6 | 192 | 11 | 9 |
- HTML: 153
- PDF: 33
- XML: 6
- Total: 192
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 9
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1