About the permanent ocean settlement:
May 11, 2013 at 10:08 pm #21953
There are many nice pictures and youtube videos about planned permanent ocean settlements.
Somehow each plan is focusing on one possible application. I think, multiple, different type of
ocean settlement structures would be necessary to make permanent ocean living possible.
Different type of ocean settlement structures; such as floating island, anchored island, structure built on
seabed and reaching above the water, and underwater structures. In my opinion all of the possible ways
together might make a permanent ocean settlement possible.
For those who do not get seasick a floating island and an anchored island might be suitable. However during
severe weather conditions these might become impossible places for humans for a period of time. In a time period of 10-20 years,
a severe weather condition is possible, and that would endanger human lives. Getting to dry land is not so desirable
when there are many seasteadres live on the sea. Not many countries desire to adopt or deal with large amount of refugees.
One of the way to escape severe weather conditions of the surface waters is, a way to stay under the the surface
for a while. Underwater structures might be suitable for that. Such underwater structures could be built and anchored
to the seabed away from the affected surface. Structures like that would need to be somehow comfortable.
If such a structure is a part of the everyday life of the seasteaders the use of it in an emergency situation would not
be as traumatic as otherwise.
Structures of a seastead could be built, anchored, floated … etc at a sea-mount out of EEZs, and this way it might become
a permanent ocean settlement that might not depend on anything from dry land. Else, it is just waiting for a disaster.
This is my opinion at this this time.
Sincerely;May 14, 2013 at 11:48 pm #21956
I was reading about weather on the Pacific Ocean. How bad can it get?
“A crew of 12 people rode out the hurricane in a hurricane-proof bunker on Johnston Atoll;
the crew estimated winds reached over 100 mph (160 km/h), which damaged trees on the island
but did not impact the island’s bird population.”
I wonder how the birds survived 100 mph winds.
Hurrican-proof bunker cannot be that deep because the highest elevation of Johnston Atoll is
5 meters = about = 15 feet. None the less people figured out a way to survive too.
“…Ioke produced a storm surge and high surf in excess of 30 ft (9.1 m) along the southwestern
coastline of Alaska …”
“Ioke maintained at least Category 4 status, or wind speeds greater than 131 mph (211 km/h),
for 198 consecutive hours, which was the longest continuous time period at that intensity ever
observed for any tropical cyclone anywhere on Earth.”
Less wind speed storms last longer?
“…traversed the Pacific for 17 days…”
Difficult to imagine the distance it traveled. I guess it did not stay in one place for 17 days.
Another reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnston_Atoll
“On August 22, 2006, Johnston Island was struck by Hurricane Ioke.”
“There were no meteorological observations on the island, but the crew estimated tropical storm force
winds lasted for about 27 hours with hurricane force winds lasting six to eight hours; peak wind gusts
were estimated at 110 to 130 mph (180 to 210 km/h). The crew sustained no injuries, and their ship
received only minor damage. Hurricane Ioke, with a portion of its eye crossing the atoll, left an
estimated 15% of the palm trees on the island with their tops blown off, with some ironwood trees
blown over; the island bird population was unaffected.”
no injuries, minor damage to ship, bird population was unaffectedMay 17, 2013 at 12:18 am #21961
I have been watching some youtube videos about tsunamis.
They talk about longitudinal sound like underwater waves.
I wonder how much damage a tsunami does to the seabed.
How much damage could be done to an underwater structure.May 17, 2013 at 9:43 pm #21968
Some of my ideas about seasteading:
May be a bit of planning is necessary for the success.
There are probably large amount of experimental data about the shape of a boat and
the action of waves on the hull of the boat. Some of that data might even be available.
I saw youtube videos about oil-tanker boats.
Some of those boats are big. Most of the oil tanker boats body is in the water when the
boat is loaded. In the video it was stated that the tanker needs a small engines. And
the tanker operation cost is so low that it adds only 2 cents per gallon to the gasoline price.
(That is when the taxpayers clean up Exon-Valdez in Alaska, but let’s not piss them off.)
So some people figured out a way to move large boats with high efficiency.
The effect of waves on a seasteading platform may be scary in a big storm. Different shape
platforms might respond differently to a storm and to big waves.
What would be the guide lines?
I would think: it should float, It should float even when it is full of water,
it should be self righting, cheap to build, easy to maintain, and should have a multi purpose,
I would think: Ferro-cement would be the cheapest. To make it float it would be nice to
incorporate some kind of synthetic foam. A V-shape hull may be the best.
Components of ferro-cement are probably the cheapest and most available on land.
Synthetic foam could be polyurethane. Polyurethane foam is widely used for heat insulation,
and for retrofit heat insulation. The price might be high, but it is available.
The price of the final product depends on labor cost too. When DIY or unskilled labor can
be utilized, the final price can be lower. Most ferro-cement boat construction documents
state that the construction can be done with relatively low skills.
The shape of the platform:
I consider the rolling effect of waves on a boat. A boat can be positioned with bow against
the waves, and with side against the waves. The less surface a wave gets, the less effect it
makes and the safer it is. I saw some square shape platform designs. A square shape platform
cannot minimize wave effect by turning with bow against the waves.
There might be lots of data to support the rectangular designs, I just do not know how to
get access to that data. None the less, the data must exist because of the large boats and
boat building engineers, and businesses. An engineering firm would probably have to show
experimental data to the customer about the specifications of a boat to be biult.
That data is not available, but the final shape of the product (boat) is available.
So the final shape is mostly rectangular and V-shaped. The bow again <-shaped, and the
aft is ]-shaped. Kind of like <===] and V. (I am not trying to be obscene.)
In my opinion, simplicity is a big factor of the success to build a platform.
Building a platform is not enough. It has to be launched. It has to be transported (towed or
powered) to anchoring location. And it has to be anchored.
To build one, there necessary to find an available space where it could be launched to water.
There is no point to build one in the middle of the desert, and to leave it there.
Some calculation would be necessary to estimate the cost of construction to ensure success.
Success is a floating platform anchored outside EEZ, and no one would sink it, and some people
would utilize it at least for some time.
OK. Well. May be that is enough from me for now.May 20, 2013 at 5:54 pm #21982
Some of engineering effort of a large floating structure is shown on this video:
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Posted on at