Cheap acceleration metering? / G Logger
September 6, 2008 at 3:01 am #3745
All that is needed is to beat a boat. The designs we are looking at should beat a boat in just about all dimensions — cost, volume, comfort, and safety.September 7, 2008 at 2:20 am #3746
I hate to be the naysayer again but a seastead of the small, low cost, types recently discussed will have one big disadvantage compared to a boat; it will need deep water and as such you will not be able to park it in a marina for instance, like you can with a house boat. This could of course have knock-on effects on the ease and cost of other activities like getting supplies and such.
Or, putting the problem another way, maybe the comparison with boats is a bit off as a house-boat sized boat will never be livable in blue water in the first place.
I guess in the end someone in the market for a house boat is not really the market we are aiming at, so such comparisons don´t make a whole lot of sense.
Is any of this making sense? I had a great point when I started writing this but now I´m not that sure anymore…
edit: Ok, this is what I was trying to say: Yes, beating a boat when it comes to deep sea living is probably very doable. But just beating it will not be enough. The seastead will have to be a lot better if it is to compensate for the disadvantage of never being able to dock at normal shores.September 7, 2008 at 6:23 am #3747
Or the person who owns a seastead can own a much smaller and less expensive boat that is suitable for transportation, but not for long term living.
I live in suburbia, and I use a car to get to the market, job, entertainment, etc. and I leave my house where it is. I could live in a big RV, but it is more cramped and more expensive (per square foot) than a house plus car combination. In addition, the house lasts longer than the car, which gets replaced and upgraded more regularly.
So to be more specific, seastead + small boat must beat a large boat.September 7, 2008 at 12:01 pm #3748
A “house boat” is a term generally used for boats that only handle lakes and slow rivers, not open ocean. Their cost per square foot is much better than the sailboats, yachts, trawlers, powerboats that can go into blue water. Houseboats are not really the competition for small seasteads.
If the ballast on the Ball House could be winched up, then it could get into many harbors. If the ball is 30 feet diameter and half in the water that is 15 feet. Depending on what material we use for the ballast it is probably 10 to 15 feet. So if it is pulled all the way up then we could get into harbors that are 30 feet deep or more. This is not as good as small boats but probably good enough. If you can’t get into a harbor, you can probably get close enough to an island on the downwind side to be sheltered enough to take a small boat the rest of the way. There are tricks we might be able to do with the ballast so it did not add so much to the depth of the ball. For example if it was the same shape as the outside of the bottom 1/3rd of the ball it could fit right up against it. Or maybe we can have the ballast really made from a number of smaller ballasts (say 10) that are normally pulled together but for harbors can be separate and hanging from different sides of the ball. So we might even be able to get into 20 foot deep harbors.
On the idea of using a small boat to go from the seastead to shore. This is what people do after they get into a harbor or close enough that small boats are ok. Ships use a “tender” and small boats use a dingy. For any boat small enough to lift up on a small seastead and less than half the cost of a small seastead, I don’t think you want to be going more than a few miles to shore. Some day there will be a computerized hydrofoil or a cheap submarine with a snorkel that makes going further in big waves reasonable, but I don’t think there is a cheap vessel that makes long commutes to shore reasonable yet.
If we need to develop a cheap commute vehicle that makes longer distance (more than a few miles) open ocean commutes reasonable, then I think we have more than doubled our development work from doing just a small seastead alone. Probably much more than double.September 7, 2008 at 1:37 pm #3749
Plenty such boats exist already, no?
By the way, it just occured to me that hanging the ballast on a single cable doesnt add anything at all, at least not in a static approximation. Shrinking hte length of the cable all the way to zero doesnt have any effect.September 7, 2008 at 3:42 pm #3750
>Plenty such boats exist already, no?
I guess it depends on how far you want to go. If the distance is in the 0 to a few miles sure. Maybe it is ok to go up to even 20 or 30 miles when the weather is nice. But I think a boat less than like 34 feet long is really too small for even open Caribbean ocean, let alone open Atlantic ocean. Commuting 200 miles from International waters in a small cheap boat is not for me and my family. Try going outside the Golden Gate sometime in a small boat. Then imagine going like that for a long distance…
If we had 100 small seasteads traveling together, then having a reasonable sized boat that we shared to go 200 miles to shore would be something we could afford.
>By the way, it just occured to me that hanging the ballast on a single cable doesnt add anything at all, at least
>not in a static approximation. Shrinking hte length of the cable all the way to zero doesnt have any effect.
You are correct that it does not change the static stability. However, the dynamic stability does improve with a longer cable. Check out the 2nd and 3rd videos in this page (the first video kind of shows what you said).:September 7, 2008 at 4:07 pm #3752
I agree. That´s a better comparison. Still the seastead will always move slower than a big boat, if you would need to say go somewhere to make extensive repairs. Now, this might be a very rare drawback, but I think it´s worth keeping in mind that a boat will always have some advantages even if they are in less important areas.September 7, 2008 at 4:12 pm #3751
Good points all around. On commuting, the obvious choice for longer distances is the airplane (hydroplane or flying boat). If you cruise at 100 knots you´ll travel 200 nm in two hours. I know this probably is not exactly “cheap” but it still might be cost effective. A real problem is storage on the seastead though. You might need a hangar thus limiting aircraft to bigger seasteads. Then again storing or mooring a boat might not be that easy either, in high seas.
Also, I´m not sure how often blue water is calm enough to land on with a smallish seaplane. I guess this fact could make it rather useless. Although most people will probably park their seasteads in relatively calm water.
With a multi family seastead you could of course share a plane among all the inhabitants. This should make it accessable to most people economically.September 7, 2008 at 9:01 pm #3753
Open ocean is not really smooth enough for seaplanes. The world navies have used tricks like having a big ship make a wide turn to smooth out a section of ocean for a seaplane to land on. Others have dumped oil on the water to calm it down.
Yes, something like the Multifamily Seastead might calm the water down enough that landing a small sea plane becomes possible. Then a catapult launch is what I would use for takeoff. : http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/User:Vincecate/Multifamily
I think you could also put 3 barges of 400 feet each together and have something that STOL airplanes could use. So once there are a group of seasteads large enough to justify an airport, I think we can make one. Saba is an island that you can see from Anguilla on a clear day. We have vacationed there several times. It is high enough that it is much cooler than Anguilla and the mountain is interesting after living in relatively flat Anguilla. Anyway, the “usable” runway is 1000 feet and while it is a little more exciting than most landings, it is really not too bad. The 3 barges would line up with the wind exactly and so have a bit of an advantage over this runway.
Anyway, while I think airplanes will come, I think the first small seasteads will get by without them.September 7, 2008 at 9:07 pm #3754
Commuting 200nm is indeed a significant challenge. My preference is to first amass a community of a few hunderd-ish people in a place like the bay area or somewhere inside the EEZ before making that move to complete freedom. With such a bigger community, the demand for communtes will become less, and its cost will become much more manageble.September 7, 2008 at 9:10 pm #3755
Ah i see, my bad, i hadnt noticed you had already noted that.
My connection here is too crappy to check out the videos, but im interested in seeing the dynamic effect in action.September 7, 2008 at 9:30 pm #3756
>Ah i see, my bad, i hadnt noticed you had already noted that.
It was not in that page a few hours ago. However, it is something I have thought about for a long time. You can see my notes on seaplanes and such here:September 7, 2008 at 11:00 pm #3757
>My connection here is too crappy to check out the videos, but im interested in seeing the dynamic effect in action.
If you think about the stability of the ballast it is easy to understand. With a very short rope, waves can make the ballast swing back and forth under the float. But with a really long rope this does not happen. With a long rope, the ballast force is always pulling nearly straight down. This really helps compared to a ballast swinging back and forth.September 8, 2008 at 11:50 am #3758
>My preference is to first amass a community of a few hunderd-ish people in a place like the bay area […]
My preference is people migrating around the Atlantic. I think this can be fun and interesting with just 1 family and grow over time. I also think a few seasteads could make an interesting reality TV show somehow. Seems like we could appeal to tourist who wanted to catch their own fish for a month along some segment of the migration.
I don’t think questions of sovereignty are interesting until after there is a large group. So I don’t think we need to stay in international waters early on.
The forum ‘Structure Designs’ is closed to new topics and replies.
Posted on at