Apply Seasteading Concrete Shell Structures
July 5, 2010 at 2:52 pm #1290
I have been off forum for a while because i found that the group needs to discuss and consolidate things. It makes little sense for me to participate in discussions that try to discuss things that have been solved a long time ago.
It is a question of efficiency to NOT discuss things that the experts has already solved a long time ago – just the common public is not yet aware of it.
Questions like “what material a maintenance free permanent floating structure must be made from” has been solved by Troll A and Nkossa and similar applications a long time ago – the discussion is over.
Permanent floating structures hosting communities are out there on the oceans as we speak and has been so for a long time for the oil and gas industry.
People using floating structures for a nomadic lifestyle paying taxes to nobody are out there – we call them super yacht owners. Floating vacation condos exist we call them cruiseship.
Floating casinos, floating villages, floating markets all this exists.
The only problem that is left to solve is “massification of the market”.
As any technology seasteading – although it is out there somwhere for some specialist segments -has no mayor social impact as long as it is not available for the “average guy”.
This brings us back to the basics. As long as the average guy can not buy a floating home at normal housing prices – it will stay in those special segments of oil and gas industry and super rich yachting.
I find that ultimatly the forums are converging to the point that the ONLY way to build a “maintenance free permanent floating structure” at a decent price is concrete shell building.
As this is my thread i would beg anybody who does not agree with this conclusion not to post here but open his own thread.
Those who are inside this conclusion – let us chat about how to apply it.
European Submarine Structures ABJuly 6, 2010 at 5:53 pm #10649
If you know all the answers and have all of the solutions to everything, please, ‘Oh-Lord’ enlighten us.
Never be afraid to try something new…
Remember, amateurs built the ark, professionals built the Titanic.July 6, 2010 at 6:28 pm #10652
Unless I am completely mistaken, I think he did.
Now, having said that, Ellmer I think you should use initials CS and/or ESS and then segway strait into ‘Floating Concrete Shell Structures’ from a marketing point of view. Concrete Submarines are/would/will be a hard sell if for no other reason than the ‘word’ submarine implies a vessel with little reserve buoyancy: ie., they’re designed to sink! Hard sell, very hard sell…July 6, 2010 at 7:28 pm #10654
I made a similar post in “Modular Island Design” that seems to solve the question of making floating concrete structures available to the masses. The only issue I have now is with mooring these things outside EEZs. It’s just too deep. The weight of the hundreds of kilometers of polypropylene lines is equal to the island itself in most of my calculations. So the issue now is getting those lines out there in the first place and the cost involved.
King Shannon of the Constitutional Monarchy of Logos.July 6, 2010 at 9:07 pm #10655
MelllvarParticipantellmer - http://yook3.com wrote:
Those who are inside this conclusion – let us chat about how to apply it.
The most obvious way I can think of to start would be simply building some prototype shell structures and dumping them in the water to test, preferably with people living aboard but that would depend on the structure. That would require money, but the cost could hopefully be kept relatively low (low $10,000’s at most) for small, early models, and since we’re talking concrete shells they could hopefully be scaled to whatever funding was available. The money would most likely come only from people seriously interested in this version of seasteading, or any that could be solicited from “investors.” I use the quotes because getting actual investors would seem like not the best idea, since they’ll expect actual returns in a reasonable time frame and would likely have some control over the project, but sponsorship deals and such could be used instead for the same purpose (I’m guessing this would attract at least some attention).
The other side to that would be exactly what could be built and how it should be done (and solving some remaining design problems… at least, I don’t think they have been solved!). I vaguely seem to remember you mentioning some kind of confidentiality agreements, but regardless you probably have a better idea of the kind of labor, expertise, time and materials needed to build and move these kinds of structures, so I’d rather hear what you think about it than speculate on it myself.July 6, 2010 at 10:38 pm #10659
I can imagine ellmer’s frustration; he has spent a lot of time and effort working these things out only to have to explain them again and again everytime some noob stumbles onto the forum. Yet statments like”Questions like “what material a maintenance free permanent floating structure must be made from” has been solved by Troll A and Nkossa and similar applications a long time ago – the discussion is over. ” are a direct result of that frustration. You yourself had a pretty radical new notion just last post.
Which brings me back on topic;
“My suggestion is the following : get a plastic extruder mount it on …
…The plastic has enough flexibility to form the 4km radius curve all the way to the bottom. You connect the seastead to the other end and enjoy a relative flexibe mooring, able to take tousands of tons of force, litte sensible to fatigue, tooth save, ever lasting.
Get a small plastic recycling plant and mount it on a barge. Most of you already know about ocean gyres; the places where all the floating debris in the seas ends up. There are five world wide and each contains millions of tons of floating plastic trash these days. , Start reforming and extruding it into breakwalls, spar structures. treet-runk sized mooring lines, whatever you want. If the recycling plant is all electric then it could be made self-sustaining being powered by wind, wave, solar, temperature differential, any of the ambient energies we have all to much of around us at sea.
In other words, after the initial investment of a barge and some plastic recycling equipment this could keep turing out free structures as long as people keep throwing trash in the ocean and for many years after.July 7, 2010 at 12:30 am #10662
Lets forget about anchoring an imaginary seastead in 3000 ft of water and lets stick to the subject !
Will, before we got “transfered” here from “round structures” we were talking about the fact that steel reenforced concrete (SRC) its the only way to go for seasteading. You are using the term “concrete shell building”. Excuse my ignorance, but Is there a difference?
My second question would be if we are trying to make mone OFF seasteading or WHILE seasteading?July 7, 2010 at 3:56 pm #10664
Might I suggest that we’re going about this the wrong way? The issue of having a production facility to mass produce these things can be solved by a design/building method that eliminates the need for large scale machinery.
I’m of the belief that if we make things as simple as possible,it ultimately reduces cost. So what if we had a modular system that allows one to construct the seastead on the water, at it’s intended location?
I’m referring to my hexatoon system of course but I’m sure there are similarly scaleable concepts.
King Shannon of the Constitutional Monarchy of Logos.July 7, 2010 at 7:24 pm #10666
Concrete is probably the best value, but fiberglass/composites/plastic/foam have a place for non-strength intensive applications.
So I totally agee with everything else, but I think that equalized pressure submarines(dry boxes) can be made from less impressive/expensive materials.
These materials become particularly useful if you build a concrete+acrylic+epoxy “coffin” to decompress in.
If you have a storm proof lifeboat strategy + waterproof life support systems(these can utilize supply deliveries) all floating on water, I would argue you are seasteading.
Given a storm proof life boat:
- Long-Term Life support/Living space doesn’t have to be stormproof if:
has variable buoyancy.
July 7, 2010 at 7:28 pm #10667
- Long-Term Life support/Living space does not have to be self sustaining in order to be seasteading.
Building up a reinforced hull, using Ferrocement/shotcrete/gunnite has been discussed. I am of the opinion that, yes, it is the way to go. Look up Sea Orbiter and FLIP ship, I have suggested it…. As for anchorage, that’s also been discussed.
That said, telling folks that your design is the only viable design is horse-hockey. If everyone was in perfect agreement, then we would only have one idea, which would be just like living in the millions (billions?) of mobile/manufactured ‘homes’ in use…
One problem with ferrocement is that ALL of the attachment points and fittings, including any plumbing and connectors have to be pre-designed into the hull. All of the things that pierce the hull will have a different expansion rate, than the ferrocement, creating both weak spots and eventual leaks. Otherwise, ferrocement is perfect, for developing a hull that can be rapidly prepared, similar to the submarine hull you propose as your perfect structure. Historically, there is a ferrocement American hull from W.W. 1 that is still afloat, which has also been covered…
Another problem with ferrocement is the different people that apply it, with different techniques, cement formulas and equipment. That’s why ferrocement has a bad reputation. As for testing of it as a deep-sea pressure hull, that’s also been discussed. U.S. Navy studied laminated concrete speres, to design depth of 3500 feet. Results? It can be done, which has also been discussed.
My question is this: What, exactly, is this thread supposed to be about, if it’s all been discussed and determined?
Never be afraid to try something new…
Remember, amateurs built the ark, professionals built the Titanic.July 7, 2010 at 8:59 pm #10669
I’ve been saying that for the last 72 weeks I’ve been around,….
A huge seastead can be built like this. The question is, what would be the minimum size of one module? I thought of minimum of 200′ LOA.July 7, 2010 at 11:17 pm #10670
concrete shell, modular, scaleable, now we are cooking.
There are a couple of questions left if we agree that we have to do it in concrete shell, modular, scaleable,
Should we go for “closed tiling concepts” with exact fit of standard elements – or should we go for a more “random connection” like grid seasteading, and spiral island.
How big should the “base floating element “be. Floating elements of the size of a bottle to the “size of a condo” has been suggested.
Clear is the bigger the “base element” the more difficult will it be to produce without owning “industrial scale facilities”. The bigger the base element the higher the friction potential when floating the first element out. You will hardly have a problem with authorities to float out a cube, hexagon, of 1m – you probably will have trouble when it has house size, and you bet you will have when it has condo size.
It would also be great if you could load the base element into a container and ship it worldwide.
I would incline to something of 1-2m that can be carried and floated out by 2 man without cranes and special equipment – any thoughts?
I would also suggest to have elements connected to rigid structures of “single family property size” – some 20m then switch to a long thin connection element to keep some distance to the next “family property platform” – it could look similar to the lake powell concrete shell floatJuly 8, 2010 at 4:42 am #10672
The “Base floating element” (how about calling it a “module”?), I ventured to say that it shud be a minimum 200′. ( 70 m). Why smaller? I dont think that for that size we need industrial size facilities. Your yard, Will, can easily accommodate building a module that size, which, by the way, can accommodate 50-80 people. Well, it wont be 800 sq ft per person, or condo like amenities, but more like the standard cabin size for any comercial ship. If we want to seastead, we shud learn how to live @ sea, frugal and economical. Pls dont get me wrong. I am a firm beliver in the incremental approached to seasteading. But since the scale of seasteading is up there @ the level of mega floating structures and nation building, 200′ is very reasonable to start with.
Am I too ambitious here?July 8, 2010 at 7:40 am #10673
Would you believe we already have a 2m wide, container friendly, machine free construction module that can be connected to form both spars and planes(flat surfaces, not jets)? That weighs only 15kg and displaces well over a metric ton? Hexatoons baby! Coming this august :p
Whoring my invention aside, my thought process seemed similar to ocean’s school of thought. Until I realized the logistical nightmare of transporting a 10m wide hexagon anywhere. Youcant take it on roads, can’t pass under bridges, can’t get it onto a plane can’t stuff it in a container, you have to tow it like a barge and you have to take the long way around since some ports won’t let you into channels and fairways.
King Shannon of the Constitutional Monarchy of Logos.July 8, 2010 at 12:31 pm #10674
ocean, hm – too ambitious?
The Rion-Antirion bridge in Greece is built on floating pylons that have 70m diameter – they are of course concrete shell structures – so the size has already been done by somebody but it is pushing the limits of technology . If you check on the size of the drydock where the baseplate was built, the size of the “float out operation” etc… you get a picture what kind of cost (and budget) are involved to build just the first of your “modules”.
The legs of Troll A have a diameter of 24m a wall thickness of 1m – still quite a enormous building job…
The picture below shows the building site of the platform baseplate when floated out from drydock. You can see the round molds of the start of the leg building in the center of the floating construction site. Your site would have a comparable size.
I am a follower of your hexagon proyect and i would love to see it work. 15 kg for a metric ton of displacement sounds great ! I am envisioning opening a container – taking out the floats (2 man can carry them to the water) ending up with a decent platform i can move my camping gear to in just a day.
Then recieving containers on a weekly base making the platform bigger and bigger until i finish my “dome house” on top of it.
How many hexagons (squaremeter of platform) can you stack into a container?
The forum ‘Structure Designs’ is closed to new topics and replies.
Posted on at