1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




Clubstead is a failure – what went wrong and what can bo done to avoid new failures?

Home Forums Archive TSI Research Clubstead is a failure – what went wrong and what can bo done to avoid new failures?

This topic contains 34 replies, has 14 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of Shouri Shouri 4 years, 11 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 35 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #4989
    Avatar of vincecate
    vincecate
    Participant

    Patri wrote:

    All I can say is WTF?

    The post he was talking about that did not get any response was a reply to a blog entry. These replies don’t show up in my own yahoo pipe, so maybe others missed it too:

    http://seasteading.org/stay-in-touch/blog/3/2009/02/09/engineering-qa-text-online

    My seasteading pipe on yahoo:

    http://pipes.yahoo.com/seasteadengineering/main

    #4991
    Avatar of livefreeortry
    livefreeortry
    Participant

    Patri wrote:
    [/quote]

    I agree with your general viewpoint here, but you are misreading the data. America was not settled by families rowing over on individual rafts, it was settled by ships containing 100+ colonists each, and representing significant chunks of capital for their day. Columbus’ original voyage was three such ships. This is an example supporting a ClubStead sized start, not opposing it!

    .

    Patri, I was afraid this would come up. While I agree that the facts don’t directly support my conclusion (in fact they seem contradictory), my opinion is that in this case, as in the case of Australia which recieved a substantial convict population, religious persecution, tangible commercial opportunities, government coercion and government subsidies played a major role in moving large numbers of people. These factors are absent in our context, IMO. Also settlement on the ocean is a different ball game compared to settling land.

    Anyway, I suppose we’re more or less on the same page here.

    Btw, what do you think of my idea of lashing together mutiple waterwalkers to create a large habitable area on top? http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/Image:Waterwalker-assembly.jpg

    livefreeortry wrote:
    [/quote]

    *edit: An unsolicited suggestion, how about you make 4-6 waterwalker modules of the same size as the last one, then connect their apexes with stiff beams and place your living area on top?? For example, a square formation of 4 waterwalkers and one more at the center, all connected at the top by stiff beams with a flat area on the beams.

    Maybe you may want to tie the bases of the waterwalker modules together for added rigidity.

    Benefits:

    1) Technically simpler than one huge waterwalker.

    2) The size of the square is (almost) arbitrary, so you can put a large area on top.

    3) Easier to expand and shrink according to requirements.

    4) The habitation ends up on top of the waterwalkers rather than suspended from the apex, thus giving more wave-clearance.

    5) Due to the distributed nature of the flotation, more damage resistant.

    Thoughts??

    *edit2: Available area calculation:

    Assuming that waterwalker2 beams (20 feet each) make an angle of 60 deg with each other at the apex, the side of the waterwalker base comes to 20 feet. So, 5 waterwalkers in the above configuration would have a diagonal length of 3 x 20 x 1.414 = 84.84 feet. (The central waterwalker is corner-to-corner with the other 4)

    This gives a footprint area of (84.84 x 84.84) /2 = 3600 sq feet! Even if the habitation is restricted to area defined by the 4 apexes, it comes to 1600 sq feet.

    This is totally huge; to put it into context, my entire home is 1000 sq feet!! Additional flotation may be needed to bear the weight of a full household, but this should be cheap and technically easy.

    Am I making some error or is this a totally cool solution???

    #4992
    Avatar of DanB
    DanB
    Participant

    I want to encourage people to think hard about the risks that are involved in various strategies.

    In particular, I am very concerned about the $100M figure for ClubStead. For me it is very hard to believe that we will be able to find an investor who is willing to pony up $100M for this kind of venture, especially in today’s economic climate. There are too many unknown factors (govt. interference, design risks, socio-economic risks, unknown unknowns, etc), and not enough upside.

    #4993
    Avatar of Joep
    Joep
    Participant

    The major advantage of ClubStead is that it both moves toward Seasteads as they might look like in the future, and is still similar to things that exist right now, like cruiseships. Investors can compare them in terms of cost/sqft; legal possibilities (a Las Vegas style casino within a hour from SF, for example), etc. A totally different venture (“who’s going to invest in my competing government, it would only cost you $ 100 milion but to be honest we don’t really know what will happen but you might make 10% or lose it all because there could be some UN law we didn’t know of”) would definately fail.

    #4994
    Avatar of Eelco
    Eelco
    Participant

    Am I making some error or is this a totally cool solution???

    Not so much an error, but im affraid you see things more simple than they really are.

    These things are going to be bigger and heavier than they look on paper. How are you going to construct all this? Are these waterwalkers to be attached with hinges to the main platform? On the one hand, i hope so, because there is no way you can make that connection rigid and not have it break: on the other hand: i hope you have more ideas as to how to carry a house on a few hinges than i do, since as far as i know such construction elements do not exist yet.

    I could go on like that for a while.

    #4995
    Avatar of livefreeortry
    livefreeortry
    Participant

    Not so much an error, but im affraid you see things more simple than they really are.

    These things are going to be bigger and heavier than they look on paper. How are you going to construct all this?

    The buoyancy is based on a structure already demonstrated by Vince. The 5 waterwalkers could be constructed individually and then transported to a lagoon and then the other members could be fixed. It isn’t trivial, but then neither is the result.

    Are these waterwalkers to be attached with hinges to the main platform? On the one hand, i hope so, because there is no way you can make that connection rigid and not have it break:

    Wave action stresses will indeed by amplified in the structure. But the same is true of ships which can withstand these forces.

    on the other hand: i hope you have more ideas as to how to carry a house on a few hinges than i do, since as far as i know such construction elements do not exist yet.

    Neither do seasteads. For example,how about the solution used in Clubstead? So the living area is suspended from columns rising from the apexes of the waterwalker2 modules. Such hinges may not exist, because there has never been a need for them. But because something doesn’t exist is no reason to despair.

    I could go on like that for a while.

    I’m sure. But how about some solutions to these issues too??

    #4996
    Avatar of Eelco
    Eelco
    Participant

    livefreeortry wrote:
    The buoyancy is based on a structure already demonstrated by Vince. The 5 waterwalkers could be constructed individually and then transported to a lagoon and then the other members could be fixed. It isn’t trivial, but then neither is the result.

    I may have missed something, but the last waterwalker ive seen was a few orders of magnitude away from being able to support a house, and didnt look like it would scale well.

    Wave action stresses will indeed by amplified in the structure. But the same is true of ships which can withstand these forces.

    They are structurally incomparable. A ship is a monolithic block. This design is much more fragile.

    Neither do seasteads. For example,how about the solution used in Clubstead? So the living area is suspended from columns rising from the apexes of the waterwalker2 modules. Such hinges may not exist, because there has never been a need for them. But because something doesn’t exist is no reason to despair.

    No reason for despair, but being able to use tried and true principles of construction is key to maintaining low costs.

    I’m sure. But how about some solutions to these issues too??

    Id love to try when i have the time. But note that its not me who is asserting that designing a revolutionary concept from scratch was going to be easy.

    #4997
    Avatar of livefreeortry
    livefreeortry
    Participant

    Eelco wrote:

    I may have missed something, but the last waterwalker ive seen was a few orders of magnitude away from being able to support a house, and didnt look like it would scale well.

    It is far from supporting a house, and it shouldn’t at this time. The concept needs to be validated first,but a 1600 sq ft area obtained by the arrangement I proposed (if it works) is a huge improvement over the 16 sq feet available in waterwalker2.

    And it doesn’t have to scale up, because the whole idea is to arrange waterwalkers in a modular fashion rather than building ever bigger structures. Some issues exist, but these do not seem insoluble to me.

    Id love to try when i have the time. But note that its not me who is asserting that designing a revolutionary concept from scratch was going to be easy.

    Wasn’t me either. Anyway, can you suggest some potential solutions to the multiple issues you have raised?

    #4999
    Avatar of Eelco
    Eelco
    Participant

    And it doesn’t have to scale up, because the whole idea is to arrange waterwalkers in a modular fashion rather than building ever bigger structures. Some issues exist, but these do not seem insoluble to me.

    Length need to scale up quite a bit if the waves we are worried about are to be cleared. Cross sections and ballast need to scale a LOT before it will carry anything resembling a house.

    Wasn’t me either. Anyway, can you suggest some potential solutions to the multiple issues you have raised?

    Sure. We can distinguish three diferent type of structures: those that have their flotation mostly below the waterline, like a spar. The intermediates, like a boat or clubstead, and a waterwalker-ish structure, that has its flotation mainly at the waterline.

    The latter will need multiple well spaced resting points in order to be stable. These points are going to move with the water surface, or at least try to. Either you need a structure that is very flexible, or very strong.

    You could have a platform with a lot of legs attached to it all resting on the water surface and flexibilly moving with the waves, like a big waterspider but i dont see how this could be practically realized in terms of materials and construction. This leaves open a rigid structure, that will sometimes have some of its legs forced completely under water by waves, or have them liftted out of the water. That means variations in force on the order of magnitude of the entire load on the structure: forget comparisons to any structure youve seen built on land.

    That combined with the fact that its base should have a width on the order of magnitude of its height, ie big, and you have a structure that both needs to be very big, and very strong.

    An advantage of a waterwalker-style design is its low draft. On the other hand, a structure that completely submerged flotation needs a huge draft in order to be stable. But i think the latter could be realized with far less materials, and more conventional structural elements.

    Not sure if ive ever posted my drawings on the forums before, but ill do so sometime this week.

    #5044
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    It is always fascinating to me to see democracy @ work. About 7 years ago I wrote:

    • To:
    • Subject: Floating-cities-feedback
    • From: “stdmar”
    • Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 01:48:05 -0400



    To all off you interested in this subject,I salute you!This is what I think:1)Construction material can only be ferrocement(actually steel reenforced concrete).2)Construction method can only be modular(start with small “critical mass”and keep on adding modules).3)The degree of self-sufficiency should be high.4)Population number is dictated by the degree of self-sufficiency.Since self-sufficiency takes space,population should be low.5)Size does not matter,but the degree of seaworthiness does.6)Size is directgly proportional to the thickness of your wallet.7)The thickness of your wallet(read -the project budget)is directly proportional to the number of people involved in the project.8)Financing based on one big wallet would be a mistake since it will eventualy create a dictatorship of same sort.9)Since this is a seagoing structure,maritime law should be the base of social-political-economical daily life aboard.10)Is not a matter of “how”,but”when”and”why” to buit a floating-city.11)Feedback is good,as long as it will produce a practical result in this lifetime.Otherwise,it is just chat.:-)Regards,Octavian. 7 years later I have learned that Good Decision Cames for Experience, and Experience comes form Bad Decision. Also, if you dont try you can’t fail. Failure its a sign that people are trying and hopefully they are learning,…I dont know Patri or Wayne but TSI is a huge step forward toward the goal of seasteading, and I think they are doing their best, as with the rest of us who are interested in this goal. But lets not confuse one step with “we’re almost there”, because seasteading is a complex matter which requires comlex solutions not only in the field of marine engineering but socially and politically. Let us explore a variety of ideeas regarding seaatesding. For example, how about opening the Design Contest to any design not only the ones based on the spar platform? How about setting up office ON THE WATER (an old power boat 40-50 feet will do) on San Francisco Bay, giving TSI a physical location to conduct business? How about involving Greenpeace in the effort? Reincarnate Waveland as an offshore base that TSI will design and built under a cooperation agreement w/Greenpeace?
    #5155
    Avatar of tcharleston
    tcharleston
    Participant

    Instead of thinking of this project as a semi-stationary platform, no matter what size, why not move into a functionaly mobility. Meaning, oceanic platforms are relatively new compared to oceanic vessels. Why not move the thinking towards a large scale functional vessel that can move under its own accord using wind energy. My idea is simple and may not be as functional in reality as it is in theory. Create a semi-circular structure with sails and keels placed around the edges at particular intervals (possibly alternating between the two for stability). In order to maintain positioning, the platform (vessel) merely sails. Since the structure is semi-circular, it can sail centripetaly around a particular location. The force generated from the wind, plus the underwater currents, can be used to help generate energy with an underwater turbines.

    I am no engineer. I’m an English teacher. However, I have always been fascinated by sailing and it’s connection to human civilization. What I propose is purely theoretical but it may lead to developing systems that can utilize two of natures most powerful (and undeniable) forces for and against each other to help power a community of the future.

    ps. Stability is my only question at the ‘hull’ is very flat.

    #5156
    Avatar of tcharleston
    tcharleston
    Participant

    I also realize that I am interjecting into a long conversation and most likely have missed some general concepts and ideas that have already been covered. My apologies for any redundancy.

    t

    #5164
    Avatar of DM8954
    DM8954
    Participant

    There is a lot of information on these forums, on the main page, and on the wiki to read through but I can’t fault you for giving your input and design ideas. I don’t think I quite get the full picture of your idea. Perhaps you could draw a quick sketch and post it in the “Structure Designs” section to help explain it better.

    I’ve heard the ‘buy a ship’ argument before. (or in this case, maybe ‘design a different kind of ship’) The problem is in the difference between uses. For permenant habitation in the deep sea you don’t really need to move that fast because you generally won’t be in a hurry to get anywhere. For someone who intends to spend 50 years of their life on the open ocean, where are you going to go except to more of the same? Different common waves, different wind conditions, and variations in wildlife would be the main things to change. I’m not saying you wouldn’t visit hundreds of different ports for supplies or vacations but moving wouldn’t necessarily be a priority with this type of lifestyle.

    The main reason for the platform direction that has been chosen for this experimental step into the sea has a lot to do with stability, potential for comfort, and safety. I don’t think that we’ve gotten as far as wave-tank testing with the ClubStead design but the hope is that by raisng the living area above the waves and spreading the structural support as wide and deep as we can, we can beat or match a boat in as many of these areas as possible. Ships ride on the surface in such a way that they’re subject to every movement of the water. We’re hoping to tap into the calmer waters below the strongest wave action at the surface as well as rise above the crests of the waves as much as possible.

    Even if this ClubStead is eventually built, I don’t think it will be the only, nor the last, seastead design. Keep bringing your ideas to the table so we have even more to work with.

    #5167
    Avatar of Pastor_Jason
    Pastor_Jason
    Participant

    Alright, my first post. I’ve been seriously considering Sea-steading since 2001, though I didn’t have that name for it then. I’m very happy to have found this site as a great resource of people and ideas. I will be taking a different direction than Clubstead but if we all end up in the ocean then it’s a co-operative effort anyway!

    I think Clubstead could very well be a great success and a failure simultaneously. Allow me to address my thoughts:

    1. 100M price tag isn’t crazy. There are plenty of people looking for something decent to invest in now and see everything as less risky than the market. Of course, you could always put a bug in the ear of Donald Trump. Selling Real Estate on the open waters is just up his alley.
    2. Keeping it close to major cities on the West Coast would dramatically increase the base of people who may want to live/work there.
    3. Operating businesses that are illegal/controlled in the U.S. as a means to draw capital and revenue would be a mistake in my opinion. This would put us in conflict with the neighbor we are relying on. More importantly, moral corruption is exactly what many of us ‘seasteaders’ are looking to get away from. Invite these influences in and the Clubstead will fall to the same issues that have systematically picked apart our great nation.

    I wish you well, have enjoyed much of the content you have already put forth, and look forward to contributing in my own ways.

    Live Well!

    -Jason

    #5180
    Avatar of Carl-Pålsson
    Carl-Pålsson
    Participant

    Welcome to seasteading, Pastor_Jason!

    3a: If the laws are to be as restrictive as those in the U.S., what is the comparative advantage with seasteading? I am sure there is plenty of unused land in the continental US. Wouldn´t you be better off setting up business there if this was the case, and not get the hassle and expense of ocean living? Or even better in an even more business friendly place like Hong Kong?

    3b: Having less and laxer laws than the US does not automatically make for conflict. Of course, the closer you are, the less you will be able to get away with. But that is just life, and seasteads will just have to find some kind of sweet spot when it comes to distance and allowance of frowned upon activities.

    3c: I would argue that the morally corrupt party is the United States, if the other party has more lenient laws on some of the usual issues (sex, drugs, guns, etc).

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 35 total)

The forum ‘TSI Research’ is closed to new topics and replies.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate