Submarine concept of seasteads
April 28, 2008 at 9:21 am #453
I find the idea of seasteads fantastic. The biggest danger of a seasteads is that it will sink to the bottom of the ocean and then the story ends.
To avoid sinking it could be better to construct a seastead as a submarine ship, which can go completely under water. One other benefittance of this concept is that the whole seastead can go under water when a storm or a typhoon develops on sea. Then no damage can be done to the part above the sea level.
One other option is to cover the whole upper part of the seastead with a sort of water tight glass structure, so no water can penetrate in it.
The submarine concept must be considered further. I will post more views about it coming months.
DewanandApril 28, 2008 at 5:46 pm #1909
Iam not any marinetime engineer, but at my knowledge that would be very hard and costly to build. everything would not only need to be watertight, but all so pressure resistant and everything outside would need to be seawater resistant. Allso mechanical failure while underwater is even more catasthropics than when on water. Somekind off underwater exit at the bottom of the platform could be usefull.April 28, 2008 at 6:26 pm #1910
Have a look at http://seasteading.org/seastead.org/commented/paper/designs.html#Underwater , living under the water has too many disadvantages.April 29, 2008 at 12:51 am #1914
Submarines have limitations to where they can reside under the surface. If they get below their design limit, they tend to implode. Thus, submarines suffer from the same sinking problem that seasteads do. There are a few submarines that have gotten down to the bottom of the deep ocean, but they are very few in number. These days nobody even tries, they use ROV (Remotely Operated Vehicles) instead.
-WayneMay 21, 2008 at 1:47 am #2140
Sinking is in some ways a worse problem for submarines than for surface vessels, because a submerged submarine has no safety margin. Weight = displacement. A down current or even a change in salinity or water temperature is dangerous. As an old submariner said, “she’ll go all the way to the bottom if we let her.” A surface vessel has reserve displacement above the water line, so as long as it stays water tight, it is OK.May 22, 2008 at 1:43 pm #2250
The submarine concept for seasteading may make an interesting extension to the more conventional (if any of this can be called conventional) spar bouy concept. Consider having a submarine laboratory or industrial complex, assuming you are located in shallow enough waters, supporting your economic base of research, mining, fisheries, etc. This would be a great way to take advantage of the unique properties of a seastead, that being a permanent ocean based presence.May 23, 2008 at 3:15 am #2273
you know it would probably be a pretty interesting to have a spar top design and have a submarine living station attached to the bottom of the spar. this could have come interesting side benifits, i am not sure what they might be but hey, the possibility is thereMay 23, 2008 at 7:13 am #2276
Other than research grants and military capability, what exactly are the benefits of a submarine? (serious question) They’re not really economical transportation or shipping vessels. You can’t do too much useful underwater work in a submarine that I am aware of.
May 10, 2009 at 5:56 am #5926
- If you’re into the artificial island concept, I could easily see making extensions that run beneath the surface to expand living or industrial capacity while preserving the surface for agriculture and natural beauty.
Are costs of elevating a structure above the waterline to avoid waves, less than creating a watertight one designed to be submerged below them? Are the rocking back and forth with the seas movement better than having to breathe recycled air and use water diffused sunlight? Ultimately, are the reasons to build above the water greater or less than the reasons to below the water line? I think these are good questions to ask, and eventually explore and discover.
There is no fate but what we make for ourselves. Each to his fate.November 16, 2009 at 1:14 am #8675
We just finished building a 200 ton self propelled submarine habitat (blimp shape), which is the room and floor equivalent of a 68 squaremeter apartment.
The building cost is 331 Euro per cubic meter, (ton of displacement) – this is within the range of european and US average real estate prices.
I think we should not dismiss the idea of submarine habitat seasteading (1ATM) too early.
The concept allows “leave coffee cup on table cruising” in open ocean storm conditions for very small personal units that can be handled very much like a autonomous “yacht” or a “houseboat” but cutting the need of breakwaters and calm bays.
European Submarine Structures AB
lens shape sub-surface habitatNovember 16, 2009 at 3:17 am #8676
If we intend to be self-sufficient, we need many things we can only get on the surface. Communications need to be able to pick up signals, water can cause alot of problems with that. We need to be able to grow food. We need the sunlight and/or waves and/or wind for power.
- NickNovember 16, 2009 at 4:07 am #8677
Since you are involved with the concrete submarines, I assume that you guys are building those in ferrocement. I was wondering if you can take a look at my kite modules and let me know if you could give me an aproximate estimate for the construction of the hull. http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/Image:KM_SPEC_SHEET.jpg. These modules will be rafted up to form the following floating structure http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/Image:006.JPG. If you can, I will provide detailed spec sheets. Ty Octavian.November 16, 2009 at 7:32 pm #8684
The watersurface is the most hostile place of the ocean, where atmosphere and ocean have the most violent interchange – it is for a good reason that NO animial is actually living “on the watersurface” – animals that habitat the open ocean live below (fish) or above (birds) – for a good reason. The watersurface itself is a lifeless hostile desert.
I think the idea of building platforms above is a good one, but it is only one half of the possibilities – the other half is below surface.
A submarine concept does not necessaryly mean that you break all contact to the surface completly – you still might have communication bouys – air supply masts, (snorkel) – etc… If you use a habitat as show above in the caribbean – the light conditions are by far more enjoyable at some depth than it would be on the surface (sunburn, UV reflection,).
See light conditions in our submarine yacht prototype:
If we grow food we should not think in duplicating land based food production but try a kind of open ocean farming like this one …
For energy production we could use current turbines like this one – instead of wind turbines.
Once you have a habitat that allows you to stay at open ocean and live well – it is a bit like colonizing a new continent. The smallest possible units to do so might have the size of a motorhome, but they need to be submarine to allow some comfort.November 16, 2009 at 8:42 pm #8685OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
…. concrete submarines, I assume that you guys are building those in ferrocement. ….
…. I was wondering if you can take a look at my kite modules and let me know if you could give me an aproximate estimate for the construction of the hull.
… modules will be rafted up to form the following floating structure ….
Our submarine hulls are thick walled tubular concrete structures similar to the floating structures used in oil and gas industry – this is a concrete cast tecnology – similar to tunnel and arch dam construction. There is no mesh wire involved as in ferrocement boatbuilding.
I am not sure if the building cost aproximates that we handle ( 331 Euro per ton of displacement ) are valid for the kite shape float elements that you have proposed. If i get your concept right i would assume that you plan to do this in plate building – so the most important cost factor will be the forming and concrete handling labor cost.
If you have a look on the labor hour cost we are building in South America – so our labor cost is a factor 10 lower than it would be for a building site in Europe or US.
What i find extremly interesting in your concept is the “modular housing idea”. House mass fabrication on land has always be limited by the limitations of street transport – both in weight (40tons) and with (2,4m) which does not allow transporting structures in the size of a complete house. This is VERY different on the ocean. There is NO size nor weight limit for concrete prefabricated structures – so fabricating floating homes and structures might be one of the first fabrication processes where “doing it on the ocean” would be a ADVANTAGE instead of disadvantage compared to land based facilities.
WilNovember 17, 2009 at 1:08 am #8687
Those concrete subs are looking really awesome, and the cost you cite are quite impressive. I agree; staying away from the water interface makes a lot of sense, on physical grounds. I can see some practical problems with it too though.
Id love to bounce some questions of you guys. What email adress should I mail to?
The forum ‘Structure Designs’ is closed to new topics and replies.
Posted on at