WAVELAND-MODULAR MOBILE OFFSHORE BASE
March 21, 2009 at 6:00 pm #857
I am sharing w/you my design of hybrid (mobile & stationary) offshore seastead. At its core, are quadrilateral (kite) shaped floating modules that can be rafted up to to create various shaped floating areas depending on the seasteaders needs (mobile or stationary). Every kite modules (KM) are the same in terms of angles, and the dimension of their sides so they can be built @ any scale. The scale model that I am presenting here is, LOL(length over all)=200′ , B(beam)=120′ , Freeboard=70′ , D(draft)=10′-18′(variable), for each KM. It is designed to be built of structural reinforced concrete infused w/amcorite. When mixed with normal portland cement, amcorite increases the strength and water resistance of portland cement by reducing its porosity and shrinkage. The amcorite, portland cement, and steel lath mix results in a very strong exostructure. This a detailed view af a KM designed as a resort http://wiki.seasteading.org/images/e/e0/002.JPG, http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/Image:005.JPG. Rafted up as Mobile formation http://wiki.seasteading.org/images/9/98/006.JPG, http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/Image:007.JPG. Rafted up as Stationary formation, Brakwater http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/Image:010.JPG, Star http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/Image:008.JPG, and few others http://wiki.seasteading.org/images/5/5f/009.JPG, http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/Image:013.JPG, http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/Image:011.JPG, http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/Image:012.JPG.March 22, 2009 at 2:32 am #5278
Interesting concept Ocean. Its definitely something to keep in mind once we reach a certain scale. Looks like a lot of meticulous work making those detailed models. Well done!March 23, 2009 at 6:42 pm #5287
What keeps them from bashing each other to bits in the waves?March 23, 2009 at 8:47 pm #5289
secure @ the gunwale and @the waterline w/lines on cleats. Traditional raft up. Forward and aft spring lines and bow ,midship and stern breast lines. Long fenders in between them (as long as the freeboard, close to the waterline). Note: when this formation is reached http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/Image:007.JPG., then in itself will become one KM (kite module) and can be permanently secured to that shape(mechanicaly) and by covering the bottom up to the waterline w/steel mesh, and run a low voltage current thru it for seacretion. In time it will be like cementing all this small KM into a big one. Then the process is repeted using this http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/Image:007.JPG. as a module for different formations.March 27, 2009 at 7:22 pm #5326
In an attempt to help migrate the discussion of this design over from the Basestead Strategy discussion thread, I’ll be quoting Oceanopolis just a bit:OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
…. I got my seastead design, its tested and ready to go. I will start building a 60 footer, finish, go, and never come back. I am just sharing some ideeas w/you guys. My regards, Octavian.OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
I already posted the design under “structure designs”, “Waveland….”. My 60 footer is based exactly on that design. This “kite module” (KM200) shown here @ 200′ http://wiki.seasteading.org/images/e/e0/002.JPG will be 20′. When 8 KM20 will be finished they will be rafted up as shown here http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/Image:007.JPG to form the 60′ x 36′(beam) w/ a lagoon (read,… my own private pool:-) 20′ x 12′. For propultion I have chosen an electric engine, Thoosa 17000 (equivalent diesel HP:52 HP), http://www.asmomarine.com/2005/asmo_uk/pdfs/Asmo_Marine_THOOSA_17000.pdf. All of the 8 KM20 will have ample batteries banks [8 x (8 x 12)] and 7 will have wind generators(as shown) + solar panels to recharge the batteries. Under my estimates, the whole system will give me unlimited cruising autonomy and power for @ least 3-4 years(depending on the use). My plans are to start building sometime this summer in Oriental NC and when ready head down south into the Florida Keys sometimes in the fall of 2010.OCEANOPOLIS wrote:
you are very welcome to stop by and visit, and check out the construction procces. Dont know yet if i will construct in ferrocement or fiberglased marine plywood. I dont have family but a girlfriend and a dog. The dog would love to come:-),…dont now about the girl. In terms of living on it, every module will have openings in the middle of its topsides that will allow passage in between modules 002.JPG (file). Food production will be hard on a 60 footer. I will have vegetable gardens but most of the food will be stores. Navigating the platform will will be like a push tug barge operation. The stern module will be the one w/an engine and steering, so it will push the whole seastead. The 8 x (8×12) will be wired together as a “propultion bank”. There will be a separate “house bank” for lights, pumps, etc. For fresh water i will use watermakers. No wave energy production yet. When i will be stationary,…maybe, but i dont think it is as efficient as wind an solar. So i dont think I will bother. Now, Jason my ideea was to build these modules @ 40′ or 60′ each as a homeseastead for a family or group of individuals. Then build 8 of them raft ‘em up for a 120′ or 180′ seastead. Now we would have a big enought one to do some food growing, catch some fish and sell it or bring some passengers aboard, etc. The problem is finding this group of people commited to that and ready to do it,…If in between now and then we can get some people to commit i will gladlly look into it and adjust my plans acordinglly. My regards, Octavian.
When you said that your design is tested, did you mean that because it’s a boat, it’s a well tested design already or did you mean that you built floating models and/or did calculations on the safety and stability of this particular configuration?
Since the models and description of this design talked about 200′ as a unit length and in the other thread you talked about a ’60 footer’, that’s why I initially wasn’t sure if you were referring to this or something else when you said you had a design already. If you haven’t already done it, I would advise that you draw up some plans of your design at the new scale. Even though the boat, itself, will still float, the new dimensions create different challenges for designing a livable space.
For example, if the kite design, in the same proportions as above, were reduced to 20 feet long as an outter dimension and the hull is only 6 inches thick, that leaves slightly less than 100 square feet of interior space. In a square room, this is only a small bedroom in a land-based house, but the sharp angle of front makes using that space slightly more challenging to use efficiently. Ships are also already known for doing more with a smaller space, so perhaps 90-100 square feet isn’t too bad.
You said that 7 of the 8 20′ boats would still have wind generators, as shown in the 200′ models. This would also complicate any designs you might have for enclosing the space above deck. Have you spec’ed out an example wind turbine to use yet? The power generation load you’re designing for will help you get a fix on how large the blades will have to be. You might end up deciding to go with 1 – 3 slightly larger turbines placed further apart to meet your needs.
I’m not trying to claim that you haven’t researched all this already, I’m just curious about your specific solutions to some of these problems.March 28, 2009 at 6:14 am #5328
KM_SPEC_SHEET.jpg (file), is the blue print. If U=20 ft., you have you KM200 x 8 rafted up “Mobile formation”= http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/Image:007.JPG . If U=2ft, you have KM20 X 8 rafted up “Mobile”= Seastead, LOA=60′, B=36′, D=3′, F=8′, Total Area=1968 sq.ft.!! [ 2 decks-one @ the WL and one Main top deck, "under the sun" x 123 sq ft ( per KM20 area) x 8 KM20's]. 1968 sq ft it aint to shabby for a total estimate cost of $ 60k. The hull thickness for KM20 is max. 3/4 inch,…and that is over building it big time. Huge oil tankers have a full thickness of 3 cm=1 1/4 inch of steel, max. Just as a fact, a KM200 seastead Total Area =787,200.00sq ft=18 acres!! (KM200 has 8 decks). Now one thing about seasteading that is seldomly discused here and for me is of outmost importance is real estate. As prime ocean front proprety, 500,000 sq ft (as bare land pre construction) of a KM200 based seastead @ a dirt cheap,..really bottom bargain price of, lets say $100/sq ft is worth $50 MIL. Not too shabby again for a total estimate cost of 20 Mil+287,000 sq ft left over. In terms of testing the design, yes, I have concluded in the water testing of wooden built KM’s, balasted w/lead ,down to the specs WL for a KM200 seastead. The tests were performed on a canal off the Lake Osborn. The simulated waves were up too 100′ to the model. I was very happy w/it. @ the high end of the simulation w/waves over 70′ she diped her bow in, taking spray over the foredeck, normal in this sea condition (simulated hurricane force), but the degree of rolling & pitching was far less then what I had personaly experienced in live similar conditions aboard cargo ships. This was due to the design of a high aspect beam/length ratio to increase stability,since speed wasnt a priority. Still for the real deal a naval architect stability letter, w/all the calculations its a must. As for the KM20 based seastead I will do stick to the plans, wind generators and all. The main deck will be “green” for planting veggies, plants, small trees, etc, in 1.5 feet of soil. The lower deck (only to decks here) will be living quarters, storage,engine room, water tanks, balast tanks, battery banks and hopefully, one day, museum . In terms of the wind generators my decision will follow the need for power. Since I am getting electric propulsion, yes i will have to get higher output ones. Electric is not my forte so i will have to talk to a marine electrician. But I know it can be done,specialy w/7 of them plus solar panels. Price is also a factor, since this gadgets can be damn expensive. The reason I will stick to seven instead of 1-3 is that I know that sometimes this generators break down, and I dont want to risk my recharging capacity, since is vital. For example if I have 3 and loose 1 then I am down 33% recharging. (not good). If I loose 1 of 7 only 14.2% recharging (might get by). And I will maybe design it that 5 can recharge me fully and keep 2 for spares. Always have two of each while sailing,…learned that the hard way. My regards,Octavian.March 28, 2009 at 11:05 am #5329
The tests were performed on a canal off the Lake Osborn. The simulated waves were up too 100′ to the model.
Please post video of your model in waves. I think that so far I am the only one to have posted any video of a model in waves. Sort of feels like I am in the wrong place or something.March 28, 2009 at 8:17 pm #5330
At the time the test was conducted I didnt even know TSI existed. So no video, but some notes. It is a good ideea, so I will retested and posted some time soon.March 29, 2009 at 2:09 am #5334
I just have one minor correction on your sketch. The 135 degree angles should be 112.5 degrees each. 135 would make the long sides parallel with the overall length, so I can see that it would be an easy mistake to make.
Thank you for the diagram, it does make things easier to talk about. I was drawing it up in CAD yesterday and I had to make a couple assumptions that were slightly off (I put the points of the sides at exactly 1/4 of the overall length, making slightly different angles but a difference in area of only 0.88square feet for U=2). Now, you say you’ll have 2 decks, an upper above everyting and a lower deck segmented into each of the 8 boat hulls. Will this upper deck be enclosed or covered at all, or will it just be a few railings and whatever equipment/furniture/etc. that you’ll need? While this will be good for growing crops, stretching your legs, and placing solar panels, I’d only count the enclosed square footage if comparing it to a land-based home. I know you’re not trying to sell your idea as the solution to everyone’s seasteading needs because this is the design you’re going to use and it works for you but a more accurate comparisson gives you about 980sq.ft. interior (if the rest isn’t enclosed). Still quite impressive for the budget.
The other problem I was alluding to with the square footage problem was that there’s a big difference between a single, rectalinear space of 1000 square feet and 1000 square feet divided into 8 equal portions within rooms with one of the angles being 45 degrees. In the larger 200′ version, this is easier to work around. If you need to devote 17% of a ships usable space to a particular function, it’s easier if that 17% is a large room which can have its shape altered acording to function, as opposed to a standard twin size mattress, which must retain it’s proportions to be useable. With that concept/problem in mind, I’d advise you to create 8 seperate water tanks so they can be fit into the 45 degree angle of each ship. Water can be squeezed into any shape, so this might end up being a very important strategy in getting the most out of your available space. You won’t be able to use that corner for much else otherwise.
Be careful about how you place your crops, though, if you’re growing them right on the top deck. Not many food crops are salt tollerant, so one big splash could harm the soil. You’ll have to consider protecting it somehow.
For your 17kW engine, you’ll need (6) 3kW (2.83kW min) Turbines just for propulsion. Granted, you won’t always need to be moving, so whenever you’re not moving, the excess can be stored for other uses and vica versa. The problem comes when you look at the size of the wind turbines needed to achieve that. The one I found has blades 15 feet in diameter. The configuration of your multiple boats only gives you 8′ diameter to work with in the current location or 10 feet to work with if you move the center of rotation just a bit for maximum separation. Shopping around it looks like 8′ diameter will get you about 1.0kW. At that level, with enough storage capacity, you’ll need about 2 hours 26 minutes of wind to run the engine for an hour (while the engine is running can count as part of that time). So, if you only run the engines and nothing else on 7kW in optimum wind conditions, you can only run the engines for 9 hours 51 minutes every 24 hours. That may be perfectly fine for your needs. I understand the argument about redundancy and it makes a lot of sense. However, based on your 8 unit configutration, if you only put turbines on 4 of the boats, you can space them far enough apart for 20 foot diameter blades, which could equate to a 5kW turbine for a 20kW system, or maybe even 10kW (40kW total). That’s continuously running the engine with 3kW(or23kW) left over for other uses. Also, if you plan for enough power to directly drive the engine, even with a lost generator (25% offline), you can still run the engine quite a bit on stored battery power.
I think there are other variables to take into account, which I’m not comfortable estimating, such as energy lost to conversion (any AC appliances), line loses (minimal), losses during battery storage, and less than optimal wind conditions. There are inefficiencies in most parts of the system and even though they are small, they could each add up. For example, the 10kW generator I found listed 7.5kW for “Battery Charging”. If you design a system thinking you’ll get a full 10 kW and only end up with 7.5, that’s a serious shortage. Using solar could help balance the loads a bit but it’s always important to overestimate your power needs, if only slightly, to make sure you have enough for emergencies out in the real world.
I was also thinking about the way you described your test. You weighed the ship down to the proper waterline with lead, which is fine, but you said you placed the weights in the bottom. This would affect the center of mass and could account for part of the better than real-world performance that you noticed. On your next test, try raising the weight to 2, 2.5, or 3 U above the intended waterline to better simulate natural loading. 1.75 or 2 might even be close to natural but testing for a worst-case scenario, where center of mass is slightly higher than normal would be good for safety purposes.
In any case, it’s an interesting design. Keep up the good work.March 29, 2009 at 4:36 pm #5337
112.5. The upper deck will be all enclosed. It will be solid, and constructed 1.5 feet lower from the gunwale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunwale. It will be triagular in shape, its base beeing the small diagonal of the kite stretching forward to the bow. In terms of the crops, to be honest w/u, will a headache more than anything, since I have a limited area to plant on. So,..I am still looking into it. Now 980 sq ft is very good size (for my own taste). A similar size (60 footer) power boat will have only 780 sq ft, while a 60′ sailboat around 600 sq ft. Plus another 980 sq ft (the upper deck) as an ocean front “back yard”. I lived aboard for 7 years in San Diego on a 30′ sailboat, about,…250 sq ft and had the best times of my life. But again this is me, and other folks have different space needs.Yes there will be 8 tanks, but smaller size since I am planing to have a watermaker(actully 2 , 1 for spare). The trend now on boats, since the invention of watermakers, is to minimise h2o tankage because you can make water now. The main reson is to lower your fuel consumtion. An “old school” 60 footer will have a min 200 gal water tank. Thats around 1600 lb. of dead weight to carry around and would translate in higher fuel/hr consumtion when motoring for long hours(or days). It also takes a lot of space that can be use for something else. It looks like you know electric , or @ least more than me:-). Keep in mind though, that the engine is running on the battery banks not on wind gen. alone, and i have 8x the size (1 on each module) of the manufacurers spec for battery power, also there will bee solar power galore on these 8 modules. So i think I can make it on smaller wind gens. But your point is well taken in terms of doing my home work for power supply. The test was conducted w/lead ON the deck so it was a bit higher then the actual gravity center of each module. I will redo the test and film it and post it this time, since Vince would like to see it too. As a final note, DM, I am not trying to say this design is perfect, but in many terms I think that @ a big scale (KM200 & up) and as a whole, it adresses the seasteading needs better than anything out there, mobility, modular, seaworthines, space, price. But as w/anything there are as many oppinions as people,…As a crazy sailor friend of mine said before leaving San Diego on a 25′ sailboat w/ wife and two small kids to end up in South Pacific and Indonesia,…”If you want to live free and see the word, would you do it on a Chevy now or wait for Rolls Royce later?”. He did it on his Chevy and he make history and fame. So, I think this is my “Chevy”. Octavian.March 30, 2009 at 7:43 pm #5344
Man, you guys get chevy’s… I feel like I’m designing the Pinto all over again. =)
Octavian, love the experience you bring to the discussion. Kite design is fantastic for dynamic real estate. Can’t wait to see the video. More excited to see the construction process.
As for solar, I’ve been working on putting solar up in my home (got a great southern facing roof with no shade obstructions). My work with algae-culture has led me to put a hold on it as using algae oil as a fuel in a primitive diesel generator may give me exponentially better returns for the same solar surface area. Also works as a CO2 scrubber which is important for my submerged design. Lastly, the centrifuge I use has an interesting side effect on the water the algae is suspended in… the water closest to the center is at a lower pressure than normal and actually releases air, not oxygen but breathable air!!
Ever have one of those days when everything just starts to click for you? I’ve never thought of pulling breathable air from water. Pure Oxygen is too dangerous to work with but clean atmosphere… it’s amazing!
I think with a little focus on getting these technologies to work, even in a limited and primitive state, would yield great benefits to a seastead. As much as I want to cast off immediately, I want to set sail with the capability of making it. I’d love to see TSI focus it’s efforts on more of these areas. Food production, aqua-culture, energy generation, etc.
-JasonMarch 31, 2009 at 12:06 pm #5352
What is the idea behind the kite shape? Wouldn´t something approximating a circle (like a hexagon or even a square) be more efficient, ie give more room for a given amount of concrete?
Apologies if this has been discussed, i skimmed the thread but didn´t see anything directly adressing the shape.March 31, 2009 at 2:47 pm #5358
I love the kite shape!!! Now, I’ve not pick Octavian’s brain on it, after all it is his baby, but I’ll toss my two cents in…
- Kite shape allows for modularity that is more appealing to the eye than the boring squares and hexagons.
- Kite shape is designed as a boat hull, and thus provides much reduced drag for increased mobility.
Wow… uhh… that’s all I got. That’s about two cent’s worth.
-JasonMarch 31, 2009 at 4:00 pm #5359
Its also about the cost of seasteading. If modules are build on land to towed @ a location to be rafted up, the kite shape is is far more fuel efficient than circle or hexagon in terms of fuel transport costs since it ofers less drag. It also allows for easy ,quick switch betwwen stationary ahd mobile formations. In terms of construction is simle and less costly. Since it was design to be built of ferrocement it can totally be built from prefabricated “parts”.I.e. the topsides and the bottom. Tsunamis were also taken in consideration, and taken very seriously. Since a seastead will be offshore all the time (or close to shore-which is worst in case of a big tsunami), the possibility of haveing to ride a tsunami is real. If a modular seastead is big, over 2000′, lets say, it might have a big problem if the tsunami is big too. Imagine beeing caught on a 2-3 miles wave length@ 200′ high,…While riding that rollercoaster, when on crest (or truogh) the whole structure for sure it will collapse under its on weight,…If such situation is to be confronted then the best course of action is to unraft immediately and have those kite modules ride it individualy. And they can do that. I know the chance of such event is slim but,…would anybody be willing to take that gamble and risk years of work, milllions of $s, and thousands of lives?April 1, 2009 at 1:45 am #5368
Esthetics… personally I like when form follows function, but to each his/her own.
Is a tsunami really a threat in deep water?
Even if it is, to me it sort of goes in the force majeure category. Protecting against everything is unreasonable. Dispersing a whole community of these in anticipation of a tsunami would be an incredibly disruptive activity on the community. It seems more rational to just stay away from shallow waters instead.
Of course, a big storm could pose a similar threat, but would possibly be a lot more frequent than a tsunami. And If you had to disband the community too often people would get tired of it I think.
Agreed on the cost of transportation of new units from factory.
What are the chances of bootstrapping a factory at sea and building the floaters on location…?
The forum ‘Structure Designs’ is closed to new topics and replies.
Posted on at