Forum Replies Created
August 11, 2014 at 12:14 am #23768
Buying a real island would be much cheaper than building one.
The area from Midway Atoll all the way up to Kure Atoll is where the Pacific Gyre deposits most of its plastic debris on the beaches of several atolls in between those two. Once in a while the NOAA cleans those atolls beaches. You could have seen those pile ups,….
36 TONS OF GARBAGE IN 19 DAYS!!! From only one small area…August 10, 2014 at 1:24 am #23765
So, you are talking about a real island (from the seabed up), not a floating one?August 9, 2014 at 11:19 pm #23762
The general consensus is that seasteads should be built of concrete.August 9, 2014 at 8:43 pm #23760
YeapAugust 9, 2014 at 6:05 pm #23757
It will $ billions in equipment, personnel and labor to pump out the GPGP,…August 3, 2014 at 6:35 pm #23745
Sure, like your “Spiral voluntaryist seastead concept”. That’s very “practical”.August 3, 2014 at 5:05 pm #23743
You can “seastead” anyway you wish.August 3, 2014 at 3:28 pm #23741
“If you’re going to live in a bay (all of which are the sovereign territory of some country or other), you may as well be living on a marina, or even just in an apartment.”
Well, assuming that, how do you expect a seastead to “get that large unless it can survive with 150 people first.”? My point is, if you don’t start as a coastalstead (or baystead) with 10-20 people aboard and incrementally grow from there in size and population, do you expect that building a 150 people seastead to be located 500 nm offshore is feasible?
Starting seasteading on a small scale close to shore has many advantages (in my personal opinion):
1. Assuming that the venture is a partnership, if it fails, it fails small not big and people involved won’t lose all their money in the process.
2. Proximity to shore gives the people involved the opportunity to develop working, trade and business relations with land based businesses and reinvest the profits of such ventures into the seastead and grow it up.
3. When moving further off shore, maintaining this business relation are crucial to the future self-sufficiency of the seastead.
ellmer is right on the money when he said that: <The idea that a “full scale independent city outside of EEZ will pop out of nowhere financed by venture capitalists” is probably a concept error.> It seems to me that we are still talking about seasteading as if somehow a shiny, brand new seastead is just gonna materialize out of thin air in the middle of the Pacific and all we have to do is just find a way to run it,…
Not only that, but assuming that such miracle is gonna happen, how is this “Floatopia” make ends meet 500 nm offshore without certain “trading routes” already establish?
With other words, to whom are you going to sell 2000 lbs. of tuna you caught today @ $20/lbs, 500 nm offshore?? The buyer has to be already lined up with cash in hand, and either he will come to you and pick it up or you will ship,…August 2, 2014 at 10:10 pm #23734
There are houseboats and houseboatsAugust 2, 2014 at 5:10 pm #23732
While I agree that steastead must deliver a comparable quality of living to what is considered the norm nowadays, there is no way that the price of oceanfront real estate ANYWHERE should be used as a guidance to what the price of seasteading should be, for 2 simple reasons:
1. Oceanfront real estate prices are grossly inflated.
2. In today globalized economy, seasteads can be built at a fraction of oceanfront real estate just by simply outsourcing the whole construction process to a country/region which has the lowest labor and basic material prices.
Also, on a general note, I think that the existing “mantra” of starting seasteading as a real estate business is not the right approach. Personally, I’m looking to the cruising industry for inspiration. Their latest Oasis of the Seas Class ships, for example, look more like a “seasteads” than just an ordinary cruise ship.August 1, 2014 at 2:22 am #23727
I think the question is not how much you gonna pay to live on a so far nonexistent seastead, but how much are you willing to invest in order to build a seastead (so you can live on it).
Down here in Florida, for around $4k-$5k down x 7-8 investors (and another $5k in monthly contributions), a coastal (close to shore) permanent, modest seasteading community can be built as a profitable business by using houseboats and concrete floating docks, and grow from there. There are 3 investors here (including myself) who are looking into it.
You don’t have to break the bank in order to seastead. Small steps and a disciplined approach will get you further than a big leap in most of the cases,…I guessJuly 28, 2014 at 3:04 am #23711
Few years ago there was a guy from Singapore who designed and built a prototype of a hexagonal, interlocking modular capable plastic float, about 6′ in diameter. He wanted to create a big floating island using his floats. His TSI name is xns. Here is a link to his design.July 6, 2014 at 11:17 pm #23698
LOL, talking about levels of realism,…with a “corporate ownership and citizen input forces changes to the plan”? Corporations don’t have citizens but employees. Their “input” is work, and that’s about it, they don’t force no “change of plan”.
You’d be better of with a bunch of idealists trying to set up an utopia on the high seas after they all won the biggest power ball jackpot ever while pitching a dollar each and, of course, not knowing what to spend their money onJuly 1, 2014 at 5:39 pm #23689
I don’t see “honeycombing” related to modularity,…What is the purpose of building (lets say) 3′x 3′ “modules” and than rafting them up when you can build a 30′x 30′ platform to start up, for much cheaper? I see modularity being useful for bigger scale projects when the start up capital is low. For example, if the goal of the project is to build a 300′x 300′ platform, one can start with a 60′x 60′ one and keep on rafting up modules until the project is complete.
As a general rule for seagoing structure, every sq. foot below deck should be efficiently use for storage (food, water, fuel, cargo, etc), machineries or living quarters. If you fill that space with “honeycomb” you will be wasting it. Since you still need space for the above, you will have to build it somewhere else. Therefore, you will be “double building” and spend extra money, in my opinion.June 30, 2014 at 6:46 pm #23687
I really don’t see the need for all the honeycombing inside the above triangular hull. One athwartship watertight bulkhead on the median line and doubling the hull thickness would suffice to assure flotation even in case of a head on collision.
Also, speaking in general, all the waste of material and labor to build a honeycomb inside any hull, will only add to the cost of the structure (8 times more expensive if built the way it’s shown above), with no real benefit to the overall safety and seaworthiness of such structure.