Do you plan on supporting “dynamic geography” with these seastar platforms?
You mention that single family seasteads in a seastar design can come along and connect to the larger structure. Can you see any way for single family seastars on the inner part of the structure to detach and move to other larger structures? Or is it that only single family seastars on the outer edge can detach?
Ocean, you should envision the arms not like a “rigid structure” but more bending in heavy seas like on this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch
Please check the concept of ” tissue seasteading” . Long thin concrete shell structures have a amazing capacity to bend!
Wil
That video shows 5′ seas, man,…In 20′ seas those docks will be gone in 10 seconds. I wouldnt go with flexible out there. But thats just me.
You would have to arrange the Single Family Seasteads in a seastar grid that looks similar to palm dubai so that each single familiy platform has access to the open ocean or to a lagoon that leads to the ocean. So each seastar could leave the grid when the need comes up.
The outer ring would consist in a double line of specially tough built “wavebreaker seastars” while the inner platforms could relay on breakwater protected waterspace.
Hello Oceanopolis,
I am sure you will change your perception about “strong in waves” and go away from “reforcement” as a strategy to “flexible” as soon as you test things out. Just think about why bamboo (very flexible) can tolerate much serverer storms than oak trees (strong but little flexible ).
If you are serious about building some platforms in florida west palm beach we can explore that possiblility. European Submarine Structures AB is in the process to explore projects wherever they come up.
Dont be so sure. In fact, ure dead wrong abut me changing my “perception”. Seaworthiness is not a matter of perception. If something big will be build for the purpose of seasteading will be of steel reeinforced concrete. Period. This will not change, ever. And it will be solid. Yes, “flexibility” can be allowed between (lets say) “modules” ( of lets say100 ‘ >) but up to a certain seastate. Also, the matter is very relative,….For example, a 1000′ seastead (lets say a SEASTAR1000) doesnt have to be flexible.
I am not working on any projects for now, but the infrastructure is here. When I said “lets build” I meant I can provide “accomodation” up to 300′ @ more than very resonable prices. And by “accomodations” I meant all the services related to boatbuilding.
I like this idea, though I am not sure I fully understand; would the “arms” of the platforms have ballast beneath? because I think (and I am no engineer so if I am wrong feel free to correct me) without ballast, the arms would not create enough stability. Sorry if this has already been mentioned, I tend to accidentally miss things when scrolling down pages.
Dont be so sure. In fact, ure dead wrong abut me changing my “perception”. Seaworthiness is not a matter of perception. If something big will be build for the purpose of seasteading will be of steel reeinforced concrete. Period. This will not change, ever. And it will be solid. Yes, “flexibility” can be allowed between (lets say) “modules” ( of lets say100 ‘ >) but up to a certain seastate. Also, the matter is very relative,….For example, a 1000′ seastead (lets say a SEASTAR1000) doesnt have to be flexible.
@ Oceanopolis.
I agree with Ellmer, flexibility over rigidity will be the way forward. There are so many examples of this in nature and otherwise. The sea is flexible. If we are to create a platform that will survive it must match the sea. “He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day.” In other words, if you try and fight the sea head on you WILL lose.
Usually, they get shot in the back. LOL, when out there you will always “fight” the sea. And sometimes you will have to fight the seas head on. This is going to happen when you will be aboard SEASTAR and a category 3 hurricane is heading dead over you @ 11 knt. Now, there is no way in HELL that you gonna squeeze more than 8 knt top speed out of the SEASTAR. If anybody can prove me wrong on this one, BRING IT ON! Soooooo, that hurricane will come down on you with sustained winds @ 100 mph and gusting up to 130 mph. Ouch!
My point is:
- The main component of the SEASTAR maze, the SEASTAR itself, as shown in the design shud be VERY solid.
- I dont see how the present SEASTAR design can structurally sustain even 80 mph winds and the seastate associated w/those winds. I am talking mainly about the fingers perpendicular to the main structure
- I would allow for a higher degree of mobility in terms of underwater hull design in order to achive high speeds of @ least 15kn. As i said, reduce the draft thus eliminating drag. Also, elongate the main hull (hydrofoil like? or even just displacement hull). Allow for modularity and FLEXIBILITY between SEASTARS to a certain seastate. @, lets say Category2 and up unraft and ride the storm alone. Every SEASTAR for herself. Better chances to survive than risking to be crush into each other by some 80ft. freak wave.
This reminds me of the idea I’ve been thinking of for a design. It’s like Seastar, except the outriggers enclose the central platform, allowing the now enclosed water to be used for marinaculture., and hopefully creating a calm area of water. I’d make the outer wall from a material that is less dense than water – foam, perhaps – strengthened by a metal skeleton, and coated to protect it from the sea.
The key to making something nigh unsinkable is to make it so that it floats no matter what happens to it.
Terraformer,
I say this with all the love in my heart…
There are over two years worth of forum posts. If your intention is to have your opinion bear any weight here, I recommend reading them all before posting such gems as “The key to making something nigh unsinkable is to make it so that it floats no matter what happens to it.”
__________________________________________________
There is no fate but what we make for ourselves. Each to his fate.
Well,t ehre’s no denying that it’s true: a baloon floats till something pops it 
I don’t have the time to read them all…
Long Term the only way I believe an oncean-worthy seastead would exist is as a cell in an artificial organism. The basic tenets of TSI which ask for a modular, sizable design, are very clear organic features in its strictest sense. The point is that “ocean-worthy biodiversity” from whales to algae, while they do have a limited lifespan, they also have all the engineering solved, and ready to replicate with minor changes,.
If there is a point in creating man-made habitats is to experiment our ability to create completely artificial, ecosystems. The first ones will be more mechanical and will look like crabs or insects. The mechanics of the latter ones, in my vision, will be so small the whole structure will look like a human-hosting creature. Seagoing at first. Spacegoing some day.
Terraformer: Do you mean like a wavebreak? I think that could also give the outriggers more stability…
Yes, a wavebreak. Although I fail to see how it would increase stability, I can’t see how it would reduce it. My intention is to make sure all the waves break against and over it, so that the central platform doesn’t get swamped. Somehow.
OceanPhoenix 3 years ago.
©2012 The Seasteading Institute