Simple design principle
January 27, 2011 at 1:14 pm #12396
tusavision, i’ve always been Rich, i will always be Rich, i was born Rich. is that really so difficult? its my birthname.
and while we are having a link-war, check this out:
these islands only have about 50 people on them but the’ve pretty much held their own since the 18th century -albeit as a british territory.
u know darn well i wasnt spelling out my entire defense initiative in that other post. but im sure you also realize a diver could do the same thing to your sub-surface bubble colony. fortunately there is a wiki article about defense. some of my models have CIWS Phalanx systems on their perimeter.January 27, 2011 at 3:03 pm #12397
Well my mini-gun and your boat… blah blah blah. Let’s have a little reality check shall we?
Rich, what helicopters are you rated to fly? I assume you’ve fired a mini-gun before, but from what source do you plan on purchasing 20 of them? As a former US Army soldier (air assault, not a desk jockey) I can tell you, mounting 20 weapons on a deck where you plan to live with just 1 hot arse wife and 6 kids means you’re leaving 12 of your mini-guns available to the enemy should they covertly board. Just purchase one and keep it under your pillow.
The REALITY is we only have a few examples of something that will work with seasteading. The reason many of us advocate Wil’s substeads is that he’s got a 20 ton displacement working proof of concept that is economical, safe and more comfortable than an oil rig in a storm. No other designs come close to that. If you’ve got an idea for what will work better, then act like Vince and build it (at least a small version), test it and compare apples to apples.
If you want to keep playing with your imaginary design against other people’s, we’ve got a place for that…
Or you can post on any one of the dozens of ‘lets build a new society on the…. (waves/mars/space/etc)’ sites out there. There is a reason most of those groups are now defunct and that would be a lack of REASON. So be reasonable, if you’ve got a winning idea… prove it. Or just quiet down.
The rest of us need to stop baiting newcomers into these kinds of discussions. If you’ve got an idea, build it and show the evidence on this forum. If you want to play make believe, just let me know… I’ll pull out my old D&D books and I’ll run a seasteading session for you.
-JasonJanuary 27, 2011 at 7:49 pm #12400
u know darn well i wasnt spelling out my entire defense initiative in that other post. but im sure you also realize a diver could do the same thing to your sub-surface bubble colony. fortunately there is a wiki article about defense. some of my models have CIWS Phalanx systems on their perimeter.
Seasteading D&D battle accepted.
Supposing a diver could find my submarine, he would have to get past my sharks with laser beams. If my trained sharks fail, I will hit my giant red “Self-Destruct” button which will trigger an ominous countdown. Once the countdown reaches zero, high altitude weather balloons will drop anvils on my submarine. The pressure wave resulting from the implosion of the pressure hull will cause a shockwave through the water knocking the diver unconscious. If he doesn’t drown or have internal bleeding, my sharks will eat the corpse.January 27, 2011 at 8:32 pm #12401
Jason you’re totally committed to the sub-stead plan and while that might be okay for you, its not okay for me. i said b4 and i’ll say it once more. the substead does not have potential for scalability. you can go around and pretend to be the boss of this website, but i think the founder was Milton Friedmans grandkid, Patri (which is hung up by the spellchecker on his own website, lol).
history has provided innumerable examples of small groups of people living together independently. this website and the founder have made it clear that we need to find ways to empower new systems of governance to be tested. you cannot do that with a small sample size – although you can do some experiments. the sub-stead may prove to be very useful for such small-scale experiments. for all you and i seem to know, that could be the first testbed for a lot of the questions we are going to have.
im actually very disappointed that the wiki is such a small part of the website (you could be on here a while and not even know we have one). the conflict i think Patri is seeing is that the websites main goal is fundraising. although we have a fantastic cause, it will be exceedingly difficult to get high-dollar donors if they see our wiki in its current state. when people see a wiki they think wikipedia and automatically thats our basis for comparison. but the wiki on this site does not (yet) have the quality, and the quantitative knowledge people have come to expect.
therefore, i think our main focus, collectively as a group, should be to expand and improve our wiki with all the data and information we can find. their MUST be a dual emphasis on quantitative data and qualitative information. i encourage YOU (anybody reading this) to commit to making a regular contribution to the wiki. ie: “oh. i haven’t written on TSI’s wiki this week!”
and Jason, i already have a dad – nice try, man.
and you totally assumed that my seasteading vision was just for my family. so far i have models for 500, 1000, 10,000, and 10M people. i have been working on them in sketchup for 14 months. so while i dont have a giant concrete orb sitting in my garage, i very much have a vested interest. http://www.facebook.com/album.php?id=11309867&aid=2440608. you may think i am new to the site but i have been reading it and doing other research on the subject for well over a year. i was a passive observer when i knew i had little to contribute.
in all seriousness; I am immeasurably grateful for your service to our nation, sir.January 27, 2011 at 8:49 pm #12402
i just figured out how to put my idea together with the loaded.. thingamacallit!
off topic but how do u guys like the bell 429? http://www.aircraftcompare.com/helicopter-airplane/Bell-429/203
RichJanuary 27, 2011 at 9:30 pm #12403
Well, since this thread is going silly….
Me, I will have my barge in non-hurricane zones, or my sub or sub-base elsewhere, not worrying what happens up top except for bussiness matters. My flag of convenience will both give me both the protection on the high sea from everyone but pirates, and yet give me the abilty to do what I want to do.
and if we are going silly..
And I guess I could go “Old-school” mormon and have my “sexy azz” wives and say, 50 kids. (Though I Guess I am odd in that I rather have a good partner (or Partners) who are good mother to my kids more then a girl who is a 10 and but isn’t so hot about the whole “living on/under the sea”). Since We are assuming that heavy weapons are dime a dozen and willing to be sold, I think a few nuclear type 65 HWT torps will do the trick on protecting me.January 28, 2011 at 3:10 am #12406
and heres your pentagonal, too:
and your hexagonal:January 28, 2011 at 3:21 am #12405
alright u guys… drum roll pz…
you guys finally got me sold on the “deep loaded structure” -
(SEE NEXT POST FOR PENTAGONAL/HEXAGONAL VERSIONS – THX)
this one is 100m X 100m
here you can see that it has 3 levels of interior space (hence the “simple design principle”). the wall from the top deck to the top edge is 15m. i have no idea how deep this would float. the space between each deck from concrete to concrete is 2.8m (9.2 ft).
then i made a real quick one thats 50 X 50m – that thing standing on the top edge was supposed to be a 3D hottie but i didn’t realize she’s 4m tall. oops.January 28, 2011 at 2:26 pm #12412
are the green parts just grass, or a garden (food production) area?January 28, 2011 at 4:55 pm #12415
Rich, no offense… if you’ve got a wife and 6 kids, I’m probably younger than you. (Unless you started when you were 15.)
I found the sub-steads only after over a year of looking. My original thought was to use concrete domes to colonize the seafloor (Monolithic domes have always been an interest for me). Then I moved on to Patri’s concepts (which if you want a chicken or the egg debate, Wayne Gramlich birthed the seastead idea, Patri refined it). Saw a lot of people were working on their own designs (Vince’s waterwalker, XNS hexatoons, Octavian’s kite boats) and thought it would be better for us to work together than apart. Seeing DanB’s thread on Base-steads I refined that idea into Seastead Outpost: Belize.
Then I found Wil’s submarines. A few months later he joined the forum. I’m as sold on substeads as I used to be on SO:BIZ, just as I used to be on Patri’s ideas, just as I originally was with domes on teh seafloor. What you’re seeing isn’t a single mindset on seasteading but the current opinion of someone who’s been active in these forums for a while and has had his own opinions challenged and refined over the years.
You know what my experience on this forum has shown me… you can’t use barges on the ocean surface to grow. A storm will cause these pieces to collide and the potential for damage is great. So you’d either need to have zero neighbors or you’d have to invent a new method of connecting these units together because using current method maritime experts have made it pretty clear that it’s doomed to failure.
Do substeads solve all problems? No way. Did my wife stop being so negative once I showed her how much light comes in, even when it’s under the waves? Absolutely. Is this the single solution we’ve been looking for? No. Is it the most economical and safest solution so far? Yup.
Take some time and read the older forum posts. Many ideas were presented and the pro’s and con’s were weighed out. Use the wisdom of all of those who came before you to refine your ideas and I’m sure you’ll produce something constructive to this effort. You artistic ability is great and can contribute a lot to helping people visualize the reality some of us can see. You plans need more than drawings though, get specific about the materials and method of manufacture. Test models to show your design’s ability to operate in the open ocean.
Otherwise we’re in a battle of imaginations and that doesn’t help your designs progress to the next level. Some people like those battles and are known as trolls… of course everyone knows what happens to a troll in a game of D&D. If trolls hang around for long enough, they’ll eventually get flamed by a serious contributor or banned for being disruptive. How about we start contributing to this simple design principle to help flesh out the issues prior to someone wasting money on floating it out to see it fail. Fail on the forum and float in the sea.
-JasonJanuary 28, 2011 at 10:55 pm #12417
I am not sure which “maritime experts” made it clear that connecting those floats it’s doomed to failure, lol:) In general, anything that floats can be “connected” (or rafted up – to be more specific) temporary UP TO A CERTAIN DEGREE OF SEA STATE.January 29, 2011 at 5:54 pm #12420OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
I am not sure which “maritime experts” made it clear that connecting those floats it’s doomed to failure, lol:) In general, anything that floats can be “connected” (or rafted up – to be more specific) temporary UP TO A CERTAIN DEGREE OF SEA STATE.
how bout like this?
a cross section demonstrates the “simple design principle”
the walls can be torn down or left up, according to popular interest. the people would ride on segways to visit friends afar. eventually u would want a train system, perhaps underneath the cellular city.
but one of the challenges in using this design is – would it be better to plan the growth of the cellular city? or should we allow new groups to say for themselves where they want to attach? with planned growth you can make infrastructure more robust, but people may forego that advantage for the ability to be near the groups they like.January 30, 2011 at 2:11 am #12423
I agree. There are certain advantages to having temporary connections, and other advantages to permanent connections. I do have a conceptual solution:
At first I thought that the trays could be built with huge dowels sticking out and they would slide into slots on other traysteads, but I just couldn’t come up with a configuration where that works. I can email the sketchup file if anyone wants to take a shot at it. BUT heres a different solution, for now:
On each of the six sides, there will be eight cylindrical chambers built into the concrete. These chambers will match up when trays are set against each other. A tempory connection is made (this has to be done in fair weather). Then the chambers are filled with concrete which forms a continuous dowel from deep inside one to deep inside the other. I was thinking 50m long. A couple weeks later the temporary connections are removed.
BUt with this solution I cant figure out how to disconnect them. Otherwise you could have shorter dowels that slide into place after the traysteads come together? Im still working on this.January 31, 2011 at 3:31 am #12421
was not so much about the shape of those floating modules or their geometry (even though it matters a lot), but the HOW of the actual physycal connection between the modules. Let me elaborate. When we discuss this subject in detail, (some time ago) there were 2 school of thought:
1. The connection should be permanent therefore able to whithstand ANY sea state, and mostly to be applied to a stationary seastead. However, research showed that regardless of the HOW of the connection, @ hurricane force sea states or when hit by a freak wave, the vertical acceleration forces produced by the whole structure while riding huge, long wavelength swells (40′ + high and over 100 yard long) will be higher then the connection (any type) itself and the whole structure will collapse to pieces under its own weight, to be more specific, each module weight. This is a proven fact, math, physics, fluid dynamics, etc.
2. The connection should be temporary up to a certain degree of sea state (mostly my view). This would imply that each module have its own propulsion, therefore mobile and also designed to be able to ride storms (kitefloat design). When the wave condition go beyond lets say 8-9 on Beaufort Scale http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/beaufort.html, the modules will disconnect and run or ride the storm by themselves. Thus, @ no time the structural integrity of the WHOLE seastead and the safety of all people on board is compromised. In case one of the modules capsizes or sinks in a big storm, the other modules can come to the rescue. Even as unfortunate loss of property or life would be if one module goes down, it’s still better than the whole seastead to collapse. Also, note that this way of connecting will work good in both cases of stationary or mobile modular seasteading.
But, the whole connection discussion is relative, since the relevance of the connection strength is inversely proportional to the size of the modules to be connected. If we have, lets say, 40′ modules to be conected you need a very strong connection method since 30′ wave will be a problem for the whole structure. If we have 1000′ module to be connected than the connection can be only dockline on cleat and fenders (big ones:) inbetween modules, since 30′ waves will feel like 6′ ones on a 40′ module. Therefore, the bigger the modules, the better. Thats why I had advocated that 200′ should be the minimum size of a module for offshore (200 nm or more) seasteading endeavors. You can check it out here http://seasteading.org/interact/forums/engineering/structure-designs/waveland-modular-mobile-offshore-baseJanuary 31, 2011 at 2:03 pm #12439
I thinking totally direct might not be the way to go, instead, have each one connected to the seafloor along with a walkway connecting each unit.
The forum ‘TSI Engineering’ is closed to new topics and replies.
Posted on at