Forum Replies Created
April 16, 2014 at 12:18 am #23345
Ohh, OK. Well, for a 2 miles long surface floating (barge or platform like) seastead, the 200′ draft seems to be the right figure. As for the rest, I think it will take $ tenth of millions just to research the technical feasibility of such structure. As I said before, I am not here to reinvent the wheel when it comes to seasteading. Simple, proven and tested floating platforms will do it for me. And from personal experience, whatever shape and whatever size you will float out there it will always move one way or another. Why waste time with anything else?April 15, 2014 at 9:36 pm #23342
LOL, I thought we are talking about floating platforms, not ballistic missiles submarines…It doesn’t rally matters where you drop the hook from. What really matters is for that hook to HOLD.
Where did you get this 200′ draft?? Nothing floating on Earth has 200′ draft, yet. Why are you trying to find solutions to non existing problems? But assuming that 200′ draft seastead will be build, I don’t think it will need a “designated anchoring area”,…:)
Just find a nice sandy bottom in 1000′ of water 5nm offshore and drop the hook. Seasteads with 200′ draft (therefore around 2 miles long) won’t need “permission” to anchor from nobody. They’ll just do so. Of course, in accordance with international maritime law.April 15, 2014 at 6:15 pm #23340
Well, to start with, you don’t “deploy” the anchor, but “drop” anchor Also, there is no such thing as “dropping from the keel” (what the hack is that??) Anchors get dropped from the deck (on the bow or stern). Period. As for the rest of it (where to or not to anchor), it’s all marked on the nautical charts covering the area you are navigating in.April 13, 2014 at 12:17 pm #23331
Kat, I am not affiliated with TSI, and I am not here to defend or criticize TSI. Also, I am not on your ass for suggesting that TSI could do a better job at whatever they are doing. I was just stating what for me seems to be the obvious truth…
And I do agree with you on one point. What I have suggested during the years and I would have liked to see TSI do on a yearly basis, is to set aside a fund to be used as small grants by other small nonprofit organizations or qualified individuals who are involved and are actually doing seasteading research and experimentation.April 13, 2014 at 1:31 am #23328
How TSI spends their money is their business and how ticked off you are about it is irrelevant. I think you are missing the point here.
Nobody’s gonna build you a shiny seastead, Kat. Not TSI, not me,..nobody. “Seasteading alone” is not seasteading. It is called living aboard.
There will be different “levels” of seasteading. TSI is at the higher end, meaning that they want to start relatively “big” with millions of dollars minimum investments and based on a floating real estate business model. Others, like me, are at the lower end, under $60K start up and based on a partnership of “lets experiment with cheap models first” participants.
But the rule of thumb is that when in unknown waters (such as pioneering ventures like seasteadig) one should proceed with caution. Big swings might be spectacular but can run you aground fastApril 12, 2014 at 6:30 pm #23326
Why are you bitching? You are the one saying that “I want to seastead alone”. Then go ahead, “seastead” alone. LOL,…you need help from TSI now?April 8, 2014 at 8:07 am #23308
There is no discussion that submerged seasteading will not happen for the reasons anybody remotely knowledgeable in marine affairs can name.
There is no “houseboats technology” and there is no “repeat Aberdeen Harbor” cluster fuck to talk about.
There is no proposal, no finance and no developers here.
If you want to built the Next Venice or the Next Underwater Seastead Empire don’t waste your time in trying to convince me. Just do it. I already said that.April 7, 2014 at 11:48 pm #23306
I am not going to argue here AGAIN and AGAIN about floating vs. submerge, $ billion offshore start up vs. close to shore incremental and modular, etc. I never said that offshore seasteading will be done on houseboats. All I said is that for starters, experimenting with seasteading on a low budget and close to shore, houseboat(s) and ferrocement floats around them are the ideal, cheapest solution.
Lease, rent or buy, is less important. In the beginning, the idea is to get people to participate and have some fun on the water while realizing the difference that an aquatic daily existence can make in their lives. Eventually, they will become the future seasteaders and investors.
I’d rather have have 50 people investing $20,000.00 and ran various business on THEIR seastead as owners-partners than 2 investors for half a million each for the same seastead. In fact, I would never consider participating in any seasteading venture based on somebody’s else “big wallet”. I don’t work for anybody but myself and I don’t plan to change that at all, seasteading or not.April 7, 2014 at 11:10 am #23303
If you truly believe that “You need to do something DIFFERENT than houseboats and boats in general or ocean colonization will not happen”, and that different thing is submerged structures, than you should go for it and make it happen.April 6, 2014 at 9:06 pm #23300
The “theme” is supposed to be floating concrete structures…At this point I don’t understand what kind of structure you are talking about. It floats but “no boating concept” and “it cannot be handled because of its huge mass” so,…is it anchored, or what? Do you have a design in mind? I mean, it is really unclear what you envision here, other than something really huge that will cost $ billions but cannot be defined yet in terms of shape and functionality.April 5, 2014 at 12:20 am #23295
I thought of something like that,…My idea was to also use cables and run them through a whole in the middle of BIG spherical fenders, but no springs. The cable are run through holes in the topsides, half way between the gunnel and the waterline. Just tie up the cables really tight and the spheres will take care of the rest. BUT, this system will work up to a certain sea state. In big storms it might fail.
It all depends of the size and shape of the floats and the size and shape of the raft up you will achieve with those floats. If it’s a long dock, like you showed above, it will collapse in a storm. If it’s a compact “finished product” it will hold. I did introduced a design here few years ago that is scalable and will hold pretty good, again, up to a certain sea state.
The floaties depicted here are 200′ LOA or bigger. The bigger they are the less need to untie during a storm due to their massive displacement. There are infinite type of configurations:
To keep it on the safe side, all the above modules are self propelled and can be disconnected in case of a big storm, so they don’t start banging into each others and compromise the whole raft up structural integrity, and they will ride the storm by themselves.
Plus if one of them want to “secede” from the “union” they can just goMarch 30, 2014 at 11:31 am #23271
While I am not familiar with any marine application of geopolymers, as a rule of thumb, any new technology that might need further research tends to be expensive. I would stay away from “reinventing the wheel” when it comes to seasteading. But that’s just me.
There are no problems with ferrocement, if done right. There where just few bad apples plus a conspiratory effort at the time to bash ferrocement in order to promote fiberglass as a first choice for a boat building material. In general, any material, product or technology that is “too good” will be trashed by the competition in order for them to sell their shity stuff. Just look at marijuana
Also, keep in mind that in general, ferrocement is used for floating structures up to around 100′-150′. Larger floating seasteading structures should be built of steel rebar reinforced concrete and there seems to be no problem whatsoever with that method of construction.March 28, 2014 at 10:47 pm #23266
Time will tell what the key for seasteading is.
We have to keep in mind what seasteading is, as defined by TSI:
“The Seasteading Institute is a nonprofit 501(c)(3), working to enable seasteading communities – floating cities – which will allow the next generation of pioneers to test new ideas for government.”
There is no definition there of what this floating cities will be or will look like or if they should be powerful or important. As Wayne Gramlich (one of the founders of TSI) simply put it,..” there will be many types of seasteads out there”,… or something like that, it was long time ago
I think that the original idea of seasteading was mostly centered around the need to pioneer new ideas for government, and not so much around the size and form of the physical seastead,…Or at least this is my understanding of it. If this observation is correct and as an example only, than a 40 houseboats raft up 15 nm from shore, population 130, making their own rules and governing themselves, it is a seastead. Whatever an outside will think of it, it will be irrelevant for the seasteaders, if they are happy and if such arrangement works fine for them.
The relevance of Sowa, Neutrinos, etc. “seasteading like” projects is mostly inspirational, “look, it can be done” type of conclusions. What I am trying to say here is for people to be aware what they wish for when it comes to seasteading. If it will start as a “movement”, it will be one, and the participants can experiment with it. If it starts purely as a business, it will be one, and the only “self governance testing” will be in the HOA agreement they will sign for their million dollars condo on the water.
Personally, I think that the “key to seasteading” lies somewhere in between this two choices.March 28, 2014 at 1:15 am #23262
This is the same old story. We covered this long time ago. You believe the ramform is the key to seasteading, than do it. Put a business plan together and sell it. So far, TSI’s baystead costs $500/sq.ft = $21,7 Million/acre for the platform only. Give them a better deal and you’re in business.March 28, 2014 at 12:56 am #23261
And,…so what? Big freaking deal. What’s so “awesome” about it?