WAVELAND-MODULAR MOBILE OFFSHORE BASE
April 1, 2009 at 4:18 am #5369
they were never intended to enter a beauty pageant,..:-) but the “built like a tank, forever lasting pageant”,..lol. Yes I might be overreacting w/the tsunami,.. just realized that offshore are not that big. Still a seastead will encounter hurricanes and (i hope not) rogue(freak) waves. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3917539.stm or this http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMOKQL26WD_index_0.html. Scary!!! Building them @ sea,… might be possible,…but i imagine costly and time consuming. Pouring cement over rebar @sea, always moving, I dont know. Then it has to cure and the humidity @ the sea level is high, might get a poor finished product,…I’d rather not.April 1, 2009 at 2:39 pm #5379
Actually, concrete does better when in a moist environment when it is setting. As for the motion on the sea I can’t imagine it would adversely effect concrete to a great degree. I’ve been working on setting concrete underwater, and though much more difficult it still works.
As for the beauty pageant conversation, they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think I’d tear up a little the first time I spotted the floating star shaped city floating in the ocean as the helicopter approached. The rest of you can draw your own conclusions.
I think Rogue Waves would be more of a concern than Tsunami’s. They are extremely rare and I think a decent sized city could withstand getting drenched on it’s top deck once every 500 years… you can’t worry about everything, just the common threats like storms.
-JasonApril 1, 2009 at 5:25 pm #5384
Unfortunately, we’re finding out that rogue waves are a lot more common than previously expected. The equations used to determine the 500 or 10,000 year estimates between rogue waves, though complex, must not have accounted for every variable in the system. That’s understandable given the vastness of the ocean.
There was a link posted in here recently (or maybe in a blog comment) that showed how they’re using satelites to search for rogue waves and are finding them much more common than the models predicted. It may have something to do with waves interacting with currents and also snychronizing/harmonizing to form much larger waves than the average surounding sea state. They may be more common in certain areas, but they are still a significant issue to account for, since we’ll be sitting on the ocean a lot longer than most ships in transit, we’d be at greater risk for experiencing them. Everyone else’s experience on the ocean is generally to get across it quick and hope for the best while we’d just be bobbing around out there full time.
In the new article (above), a rough estimate/extrapolation given was that there are probably 10 such waves churning through the world’s oceans at any given time. Now, with 2/3 of the planet covered in water, they’re scattered pretty far and running into them won’t be common, but it’s not something to turn our backs on completely.
[Edit: Oh. The articles in question are posted in THIS forum. I looked everywhere else and couldn’t find them… Sorry, Jason’s “500 years” comment threw me off.]April 1, 2009 at 8:42 pm #5387
If you connect the tiles farther apart with something like a big shock absorber it might actually be an advantage during large waves. Single units might get capsized. Many interconnected units might help each other stay the right way up.
Of course constructing a connection system able to take such forces might not be economical.
As a general rule though, there is really no absolute need to ride the storm out inside your seastead. You can simply evacuate when the weather gets too bad. Risking just the seastead is probably a lot easier to accept than risking your life.April 3, 2009 at 6:52 am #5411
Were,…to go? I mean, if you are 1000nm offshore,…there isnt a place to go, unless a helicopter is available. And if u evacuate then the seastead will be left unattended in the storm, which is NOT good, since any boat will tend to lay Ahull – Lying almost beam on to strong winds and being driven before them while under bare poles (without sails up). The helm is lashed so as to point the vessel into the wind, but it continually falls away because of the pressure of the wind. It is a technique for riding out storms. Without steering now that boat may capsize, and a capsized boat, w/no crew will sink for sure. The truth of the matter is that nowadays ships are navigated by a click of a mouse. All the nav. data is interfaced in one system. I can have that on my laptop for any size boat actually,…and it is pretty cool. Chart plotter (the latest in 3D!!), w/speed, depth, compass heading (or true or over the ground), water temp, wind direction, etc. Then on another page radar, and on another weather satellite. A sailor’s dream. So, in reality, you can avoid any storms and never get in one.April 6, 2009 at 1:42 pm #5440
I have to agree with Octavian on this one. Even rogue waves can be tracked. Mobility for our seasteads is a must, in this way we can avoid the hazards of sea living. I would be more concerned with storms than rogue waves anyway. For you land lubbers who have never seen a storm out on the ocean, let me tell you… they are terrifing. A whole kind of worse compared to the storms we see hit our shores and they can last a while too. Ten rogue waves traveling somewhere on the 70+% of our planet that’s covered in water… not much of a concern. I’d still guess they’d be an issue to any given seastead maybe once every 500 years at most.
The other answer to these terrors would be to have a seastead that submerges itself beneath the waves, thus insulating itself from any poor weather conditions. I know the technical problems that go into making a submersible seastead… it’s massively harder than just building a seastead. Luckily, I’m not an uber-technocrat and I look for simple methods to achieve my goals which I feel makes a craft safer than average. I’m just not one to shy away from a challenge because it’s challenging. I think submersible seasteads are an option and I’ve been working to make it happen. I’d like to see at least the beginnings of a floating seastead (being built) first before I try my hand at construction (I’m busy learning all I can and doing small experiments to make sure I’ve got it right at the moment). Oct’s modular seasteads look to be the closest to reaching the construction phase, so I look forward to seeing them!
-JasonApril 7, 2009 at 5:22 pm #5471
I still think you’re underestimating rogue waves. I don’t disagree that storms are powerful and dangerous… but those are easier to predict than rogue waves. Rogues aren’t simple entities that travel around continuously. They pop up suddenly, last a short while, and then disipate back into the background, from what I can tell. This new satellite surveilence method they used only caught evidence of these monsters recently and these are chance encounters, given the limited scope of the study. Even if they last more than a couple hours, there’s no system in place to track them. Scientists didn’t even believe they even existed for so long that we have very little information on how they are formed and how common they really.
With a storm, you can check the weather forecast, see the dark clouds, and feel the wind picking up. With a rogue, if you happen to be outside and facing the right direction, you’ll probably have less than a minute of warning. Getting “drenched on the top deck” is a bit of an understatement, considering the force such a wall of water would carry with it. Sure, you’ll get wet, but the ship or stead will be battered in the process.
It has been noted that these waves seem to be more common where storm surge meets an opposing current. Anyone considering a migration along one of these currents would be putting themselves directly on the highway these waves like to travel. Even if these waves were to wander aimlessly (completely random) across the entire ocean, I somehow doubt 500 years is the minimum average time between encounters.
…but I digress. We’ll definitely want to stay with our ‘stead in most cases. Unless something happens and we can’t get out of the path of a major hurricane in time, most storms should just be avoidable and survivable. They’re a real danger but there has to be enough of a safety factor that you won’t sink completely. If your home is not enough of a refuge for you to wait out “average” (yet very dangerous) sized storms, then you’ve got nothing more than a pleasure craft for clear, sunny days.
Submersibles designed to sink just below the trough of the waves during storms to minimize impact forces would be a good option. It would already be designed to avoid taking on water while already submerged, giving it a better safety factor. It would still be quite a wild ride, though.
If you really, really want to temporarily evacuate your above-the-water-seastead, you can hop in one of those all-weather emergency rafts I read about in the wiki. Not ideal for keeping your seastead afloat but at least you’d survive.April 8, 2009 at 7:42 pm #5495
Until just recently rogue waves were believed to be a myth. We’ve been traversing the waters of our planet since the dawn of civilization, if they were a serious threat we would have been acutely aware of them for centuries.
That’s like finding a snake species so rare that we’ve only recently captured a few of them. Because they are venomous we’re going to place special “snake netting” around all of our houses because these things could be anywhere… and it’s only a matter of time…
Seems a bit much to me. Of course, I’m the guy aiming for a submersible seastead anyway… so… moot point in my case. =)
-JasonApril 8, 2009 at 10:45 pm #5498
Well, to run with your snake example for a while… It’s more like finding a rare giant snake in the Amazon and deciding to put up “snake netting” around all future huts built in the Amazon. The giant snakes are still rare and you might be somewhat unlikely to run into them… but you’re still about to move to where they live. It’s not as though we’re putting up nets in the desert or the arctic, where these snakes can’t even survive.
We may have traveled the oceans for ages, but only in the last thousand years or so have we ventured much beyond the horizon (maybe rogues don’t often form so close to shore), not to mention the limited volume of such deep-sea traffic until the last few hundred years. I’ve heard the estimate (though I’m not sure how accurate) that 2 ships a week are lost at sea. Not all of them are thoughroughly investigated or explained. The sea is a harsh mistress, I’ve heard. If only some of these uninvestigated sinkings are from rogue waves, we probably should be accutely aware of the issue but aren’t. Still, there are quite a few variables an assumptions to contend with in all of this.
They may be as rare as you claim, or they may be much more common than you expect. My point is not that we must fear for our lives the infamous monsters of the deep, just that we can’t ignore them as mere folklore or take the youthful “it can’t happen to me” attitude. Some consideration should be made to at least attempt solutions that in some way account for these events. If the solution becomes too costly, at least we will have made a deliberate choice rather than brushed the issue asside as a matter for fate alone to decide.
If you earthquake-proof and hurricane=proof your house, it’ll be strong enough to handle just about anything else it might experience. Whether it’s a good investment for you can only be determined if and when something actually happens. In California, you can expect the earthquake protection to be important; In Florida, the hurricane features are a smart choice; In North Dakota, maybe neither make much sense. I think this might be a case of building in Missouri. We both agree on the hurricane protection, but Missouri is the site of rare but violent earthquakes. We may never see another in our lifetime, but it wouldn’t be unprecedented and might end up saving your life in the off chance that another one happens.
Anyways, I didn’t mean to draw this minor point out into such a big deal… I just like to clarify my points as much as possible.April 20, 2009 at 5:37 am #5602
Hey Octavian et al.
This is my first post, but I have been thinking about the possibility of advanced seasteading for about a year now, though I just became acquainted with TSI about 5 days ago. I’m incredibly impressed at the amount of work that both TSI and the community have put into this effort.
I love the modularity and aesthetics of the kite design, but I have a couple questions:
We’re talking about a 70′ Freeboard and a 20′ Draft.
a) This strikes me as very expensive to build (in the $100k realm, just as a preliminary estimate).
b) It also strikes me that the design will be very topheavy. While these specs could probably work for a normal ship, 70′ freeboard of concrete without a spar and ballast is going to be very problematic in rough seas. I am wondering if a modification to this design could be used: something that Wayne and Patri mention in the 2.0 version of TSI’s book: An oblong underwater keel to use as a spar to stabilize a seastead, something like http://seasteading.org/book_beta/images/swath-creed_med.jpg (except a single keel instead of two)
With this keel, and a higher overall draft (more like 25′ total) and smaller freeboard (something like 30-40′) I feel like the design would be much more stable in all weather.
I’ve actually spent a good amount of time on boats of this size, growing up my family owned a 55′ Californain (power boat) of 3 stories. Despite its respectable draft and incredible weight, the height of the ship and the lack of the keel made for a rough ride. For this reason I propose the reduction of the form-factor of this design. On the whole, though, I love the modularity and the other benefits of using the kite-shape… though perhaps it’s a reflection of my deep-seated desire to command a star destroyer?
I look forward to hearing the response from the community,
James.April 20, 2009 at 4:23 pm #5612
KM_SPEC_SHEET.jpg (file), Is not gonna be 20′ D and 70′ F. Based on the Spec Sheet , w/U=20′, a KM20 will be: LOA=200.5′, B=120′, F=80′(close to your 70′ estimate) and D=30′. Now, you have to keep in mind that these are just estimates, and the D and F may vary w/weight. Also, most important, these modules were never supposed to sail alone, and they were designed to be rafted up and sailed as so. With other words, a KM20 will be rafted up as a mobile formation as shown here 006.JPG . This whole structure is now LOA=600′, B=360′, F=80′, D=30′, inline w/ a similar vessel of this size, and very stable due to the high B/LOA ratio. In terms of price, it depends were is built,….Ferrocement is cheap as materials(compared to, lets say cor-ten steel) but labor intensive(men hours). Therefor not to be built in U.S since we are looking @ high wages in the boatbuilding industry. My research indicates that Central America would be the best bet. Belize, Nicaragua or Guatemala, w/Belize beeing my first choise. If i can built a KM20 for a 1 Mil$ each, x8 for a total price tag of 10 Mil$, delivered, I would be more than happy,…10 Mil is actually a very realistic estimate. Yes, just to imagine beeing on the bridge of 006.JPG, steaming to a destination by a coral reef somewhere in Belize, getting there,unraft from the mobile formation and raft up to this stationary formation, oh, ..hmmmm,…lets pick this one up, 008.JPG, drop the hook and go snorkling, …PRICELESS:-).April 20, 2009 at 8:19 pm #5617
I see. I still worry about draft, but the only way to really find out if it will be a problem is to build a prototype and try it out!
Secondly: I’m all over that snorkling trip.
Thirdly: I wanted to clarify that my $100k estimate was just for the cement, not including labor and other shenanigans.
Finally: I was thinking of an alternative configuration for the seasteads. If you use 6 of them you can get one continuous upper deck (based upon the top levels of your models) something like this:
Cheers, JamesApril 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm #5618
I am working on prototype to be tested in the water, under various wave conditions. Some other people requested it. I will post when done w/it. It might be less than 1 mil for 1 KM200,…specialy if built in Central America. The sky is the limit w/these KM, and they are really fun to play w. The more you have , the more complex rafting combinations. I created bays and lagoons, breakwaters, creeks,etc,….and they are exponential. They can be added on to create dry land @ infinitum. I also designed it to allow vertical growth. Notice that the masts are overbuilt in terms of diameter.They can be used as structural colums(once the wind gen is removed) to build another deck(or more) @ different heights from the actual upper deck. Regards, Octavian.April 21, 2009 at 1:47 pm #5629
Just tossing a note in this to say it’s good to hear you speaking well of Belize… it’s my destination of choice at the moment. Check your private messages. It sounds like you’ve decided to go ahead with construction of one of your kite modules. Once you’ve got a skeleton of a hull, give me a heads up and I’ll come take a look.
-JasonApril 21, 2009 at 3:49 pm #5634
I did answer your message few days ago. Pls check yours. I do have some feedback on Belize that I want to talk to you about.
The forum ‘Structure Designs’ is closed to new topics and replies.
Posted on at