December 14, 2011 at 9:02 pm #16802
For 1 Million, Ellmer could make a concrete submarine big enough for 100-200 people…
Actually my offer is a 2000 squaremeter honeycomb float for 1 mio USD (480/squaremeter) – so this woud give 52 homes of 40 squaremeter each. The look and feel of such a honeycomb flat float structure would be similar to islote presented in the rincon thread…
if investing a million dollar in a captain nemo float out – a millionair could have something about twice the volume of the phoenix. Which is the 1500 ton flagship of US Submarines…. basing it on the experience of the Ben Franklin drift dive where a 4 man crew shared 120 cubic meter living space during a month we might speak of a submerged living space bubble capeable of holding a crew of 100 in expedition conditions – but not more than 50 for permanent living.
. . .December 15, 2011 at 4:04 pm #16815admiral wrote:
Video of the entire meetup was recorded with the intent to make it available online. I was going to post the link here, but it is currently made private on Youtube. There has probably been some delay due to the US holiday as well. The presentation itself mostly focused on justification for the project from a barrier to immigration perspective, though technical issues were discussed in the Q&A afterward. I saw a tantalizing glimpse of a business presentation I would have liked to see which showed financial numbers and charts when they were bringing up a chart..
This was a while ago. Any idea on when this stuff will be declassified and made available to us mortals?December 20, 2011 at 7:15 am #16882
Hi! I’ll be at Blueseed for a couple of months, assisting with some preliminary research.
Currently I’m looking for information on the seabed condition in preparation for determining suitable mooring/anchoring solutions. The obvious way to do this is to send out a team to investigate the seabed, but perhaps someone here would know of a less expensive solution which we can use until a higher degree of detail is needed.
Perhaps there is an organisation with experience in anchoring/mooring off the Californian coast, or there is a database with seabed conditions in various locations.
Let me know if you have suggestions.December 20, 2011 at 3:30 pm #16883
Do you know the water depth at the proposed mooring site?
PS. Also, the current conditions should be taken into account (I meant “ocean current” as in the California Current)
The Local Picture: http://www.cencoos.org/sections/conditions/Google_currents/index_SFoffshore.php (might have to click San Francisco Offshore to load it)
To me, it looks like Blueseed vessel might be able to take advantage of those “eddies” and use the engine (or thrusters) minimally for DPDecember 20, 2011 at 4:16 pm #16884
U.S. Geological Survey homepage has their usSEABED data online
You can use that viewer or download the raw GIS data.
The West Coast sediment viewer also has more info, you can check ganule sizes and batymetric contours:
It would help if you had a specific location in mind…or are you still looking for a suitable one?
If it’s the area I’m thinking of, around 37deg 28′ N 122deg43′W (22km west of Half Moon Bay), the bottom looks like a muddy sand mixture, very low on rocks or shells. If you move around 10km to the NW you start to lose the mud and get a much higher sand content with some shell material mixed in and even a bit of phosphorite rock. You’re looking at around 80m depth so mooring shouldn’t be too difficult or expensive.
As for currents, waves, and water temp there are plenty of links on the forums for metaocean analysis tools…December 20, 2011 at 4:53 pm #16885
I did find the offshore San Francisco bathymetric chart here: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/bathymetry/maps/area4.html. Select chart NJ 10-8.
It doesn’t look that bad. The 50 m (150 ft.) line seems to be “right there”, around 12nm offshore. Mooring is managable at that depth. For extra peace of mind, a suction anchor can be used. http://www.delmarus.com/site66.phpDecember 20, 2011 at 5:05 pm #16886
I’d stay away from suction piles. They are very expensive to install, considering their size and high technical skill required to install. They require an ROV for install so that adds a lot to the cost.
You’re much better off looking at drag anchors, more specifically near-normal load vertical load anchors (NNLA), which work very well in sandy locations. They are relatively inexpensive and are much easier to install. Something like the Bruce Dennla MK4 or MK3.December 20, 2011 at 6:03 pm #16888
They are expensive to set up. But they hold better, specially in deep water. That’s why I said, “For peace of mind….”December 23, 2011 at 3:53 am #16916
i_is_j_smith and OCEANOPOLIS, thanks! That’s useful information.December 23, 2011 at 11:52 pm #16921
And it’s not like you need a ton of startup money to test. You can get a Ubiquiti Network’s Rocket M5 GPS for $250 and a Rocketdish 5G-34 for $360. So for ~$1200 you have everything you need to start testing. First, see if you can get a 12nm link from two land-based locations. See how hard that is to do. From what I’ve read so far about these MIMO systems they are very easy to setup, but incredibly difficult to get perfect. They seem to try very hard to make it as easy as possible, though. The software that comes with these Rocket systems in pretty neat, but it’s still aiming two dishes at each other over a very long distance.
There’s a system that does automatic antenna aiming – BATS Wireless. Cost is around $50K per unit and we’d need two, so we need to make sure that’s worth it vs. just conducting an initial antenna aim and letting the RF cone cover drifting and bobbing up and down.
How would bandwidth vary with antenna alignment, is an interesting question.December 24, 2011 at 12:50 am #16922
Please check your PM before the shutdown.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Posted on at