Forum Replies Created
March 5, 2015 at 8:23 pm #25998
because it can be refloated.
Technically this is true, but this is a very very difficult operation that is very very dangerous. There have been several studies on the feasibility of refloating large gravity-base structures, mostly for decommissioning retired oil rig condeeps. All of them state that it is possible, but not something you can do easily if ever due to the dangers.
Decommissioning offshore concrete platforms
Refloating Norway’s concrete giants – is it practical?
So yes, I guess you could design one that could be refloated, but it would add tremendously to the cost and I don’t think it would add any benefit. It is designed to work in a specific water depth, so it’s not like there are other places where you could move it and then re-install it…
For me a floating structure makes more sense. I would like mobility to avoid conflits.
Then buy a boat. Boats were made to be mobile. But it isn’t cheap. Do you know how much fuel a cruise ship uses to move around, and how expensive that is? As well as the engine systems themselves, and all the maintenance and repair that goes with them? And what if half the people on your structure don’t want to leave? Do you kick them off and float away?March 5, 2015 at 8:06 pm #25997
have you done your homework to impress with funding of 100K in first round
That depends on what you mean by “impress”. If you mean “show me some profits” then no there is no way you’ll show anything after that small of an investment. If you mean “show me some more details of this new sea city” then sure, 100K might be enough to do some preliminary architectural and structural analysis and even some basic bathymetric and geological analysis of the proposed site.
But the largest part of the money needs to be sunk into legal research and lobbying. As I’ve said before, the engineering challenges are simple compared to the legal challenges. Getting a solid legal footing to get international groups accepting of artificial islands as “territory” is the single biggest obstacle TSI faces…and it’s the area that has received the least attention. That alone is going to require hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to overcome…if it even can be overcome.March 5, 2015 at 7:53 pm #25996
The geometrical optimized answer is a “sphere shell”
And I’ll tell you again that you are wrong. If you have a sphere and a cylinder, both the same height and width, then the sphere will have 2/3 the volume. Archimedes figured that out. There are also many design challenges around spherical construction, which is why there aren’t any spherical buildings around. Sure, there are planetariums and even a spherical sports arena, but those are specific instances where a sphere is useful. For normal office building or apartments, buildings are tall and thin and either cylindrical or rectangular.
the answer is obviously a tendon or tension leg.
And as I argued before, a tension leg or any other kind of mooring system does not constitute a sufficient connection to the sea floor:
For even a chance at being able to claim territory as an “artificial island” you need the entire structure to be resting on the sea floor and not floating. Anything floating, no matter how large or how well anchored, will always ALWAYS be defined as a vessel and therefore will never be able to claim sovereignty. There is really no benefit to floating, anyway.March 4, 2015 at 7:11 pm #25990March 4, 2015 at 9:23 am #25984
it would be standing on bottom. Is that correct?
Yes, it would be fixed to the sea floor like a regular condeep gravity-base structure, except without the oil rig platform on top:
Or like one of the supports for the Rio-Antirio Bridge:
March 3, 2015 at 5:16 pm #25975
No, you can slip form all kinds of structures.
The CN Tower in Canada was built using slip forms and it’s structure above the 334m level is hexagonal. https://books.google.com/books?id=yEhgO44L2IUC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93#v=onepage
The dimensions all depend on the function. I have some blueprints that call for 60m diameter. That gives plenty of room for an internal core supporting the infrastructure, maintenance, and machinery and decent-sized living quarters around the edges. You would have to design your cylinder for your own needs.
As for length, that depends on how high above the water’s surface you want to be. You’ll want to be at least 30m-40m above the surface I think, to avoid overwash, although that can be a lot lower if you have a surrounding breakwater. You can have the top of the cylinder be a few feet above sea level if you have very calm waters, although I’d factor in some safety there.
Again, you really don’t want to stack cylinders on top of each other. You want a single solid structure to avoid leaks. At depths greater than a few tens of meters the water pressure gets high quickly, and will find every little crack to work it’s way in. A single continuous pour is the only way to go. But I agree, having multiple hexagonal towers all next to each other would increase stability a lot, and increase your living area.March 3, 2015 at 9:56 am #25969
can you flesh out the return on investment part ?
It’s easy…here is my 1-second investor speech:
Step 1: Give me a billion dollars
Step 2: I build the first ocean-based fully sovereign nation
Step 3: We change the world forever and profit from exported goods and tourismMarch 3, 2015 at 9:52 am #25968
The reason why historic marine powers did not develop permanent dwellings at sea was that they had no suitable technology available to build something
It had nothing to do with technology. We have the technology NOW and there are no “permanent dwellings at sea”. The reason they were never built is because they serve no purpose. They are stationary targets and thus very difficult to defend, they have very limited storage capacity, they are far more expensive than traditional land-based structures, and they don’t do anything to “control, dominate, marine commerce” that a fleet of “74s” can do better. They serve no purpose and thus weren’t constructed.
This bottleneck was solved recently...core technology slip forming in a floating building site.
Not sure if slip forming on-site is any cheaper or easier than building in drydock and floating out. I think it depends on how far from shore the site is…slip forming on site requires constant supplies of materials to be brought in, which would be very difficult if your site is 300nm from shore. I don’t think that slip forming solves any kind of bottleneck…
the biggest real estate development deal in human history
Your numbers make no sense:
Value of production cranked out per day 17.000 USD
1 square meter of floating concrete blocks do not equal 1 squaremeter oceanfront real estate. Oceanfront real estate includes infrastructure services, access to materials, etc. A bunch of floating boxes do not have any of those services. Using that 17.000USD per square foot price for one of your floating boxes is ridiculous.
cost of building site some 5000 USD/month 166 USD/day
This doesn’t include labor, materials, legal costs, or any of the infrastructure required for a floating real estate project. You are under-reporting your costs by a huge margin.March 2, 2015 at 7:52 pm #25964
It’s actually pretty hard to find good numbers for existing structures.
According to the wikipedia page for the Troll A platform the legs are “over 1 metre thick” and that’s at 300m depth.
There is a table in the book “Structural Detailing in Concrete: A Comparative Study of British, European and American Codes and Practices” that lists shaft wall thickness for three condeep structures: Frigg, Brent, and Cormorant A. They range from 104-152m depth and the wall thickness for those is less than half a meter. That table is here:
I’ll see if I can find other examples. But it seems like you are looking at anywhere from half a meter to a meter in thickness, depending on how deep you go.March 2, 2015 at 2:23 pm #25961
I had, at one point, thought about using Fixed Platforms, but I think floating platforms are the way to go
I mean declaring my own sovereign nation, creating a flag, and sailing under it and not the flag of some other nation.
Wow, how naive I was. I chalk it up to the recklessness of youth….March 2, 2015 at 2:20 pm #25960
When creating fixed structures at sea you really only have two options:
1) As patri said, the most common method is to build the entire structure on land and then float the structure to its final location. Once there you slowly submerge it until it rests on the sea floor. This is how many gravity-based structures such as Troll A and Draugen condeeps were installed.
2) A newer style has the structure built on-site using slip forming. However, the structure is not built from the bottom-up. The concrete is actually poured at the surface, and the structure is lowered as new slip form layers are poured. This is how the Rio Antirio Bridge pylons were constructed:
Regardless of which method used, slip forming will be required. You absolutely do not want multiple segments connected together, because at these depths they become a weak point. For these types of structures you need single continuous pours that result in single continuous structures with no weak points for water to work its way through.March 2, 2015 at 2:03 pm #25959
Do you have any “proposal page”, blog, forum, where you can point us what your color of seasteading is about ?
I don’t need my own blog, I’ve said everything I need to say about my “color of seasteading” on the what defines a seastead thread.
Even if I did have my own blog, I certainly wouldn’t find ways to constantly and blatantly spam links to it in an effort to increase my traffic.February 25, 2015 at 8:20 pm #25853
If an investor is seriously considering investing in a seasteading project, they aren’t going to want to discuss the details where other people can read it.
Not only that, you can bet that any discussion around significant investment will be face-to-face. Nobody is going to scan these forums and say “Hey that guy AnonymousPoster sounds like he knows what he’s doing. He posted a bunch of links and pictures. I’ll wire him a couple hundred thousand dollars…”
Any large investment will be discussed in person, most likely with legal representation present…so don’t worry too much about your “thread disciplne and informed posting”…February 25, 2015 at 8:13 pm #25852
well your above posts strongly suggested that you will not …
That is because, as you say, it’s all about credibility, and I haven’t seen anything on this site or your own that proves you have anything credible to invest in.
but you are right sometimes the guy with the worst attidude towards the project is the first to opt in…so maybe there is still hope…
I find it pretty insulting that you suggest I have a bad attitude towards the project. I have a bad attitude towards people like you who continue to turn the seasteading movement into a simple investment opportunity…a way to make a few quick bucks. It is so much more than that, and by reducing it to “floating real estate” you devalue the entire movement and all the promise it has to bring real change to the world.
And I’m sorry, but “thread discipline” is not going to make seasteading happen. Millions or billions of dollars is what’s going to make seasteading happen…provided by enlightened donors who want to create real change and not just show dollar signs on their year-end income statement.February 25, 2015 at 8:05 pm #25851
the idea of having a seasteading forum is obviously to become a reference point where investors and developers can meet and interchange ideas, present projects, and press agents can get informed.
NO!!! The idea of having a seasteading forum is to DISCUSS SEASTEADING!!! Not for setting up a marine business. Not for looking for investors in floating condos or marinas. Not to let the media know about plans. The forums should be about the engineering, legal, economic, and political challenges of creating basic seasteads and/or sovereign seasteads.
I know, I know. You’ll say “you won’t ever have a seastead until you have investors”. That might be true, but the investors we should be looking for are not venture capitalists looking to make a quick buck. They should be visionaries who believe in the ideas and values of creating new free states on the ocean.
If you continue to just use seasteading as a simple marine business or “floating real estate” then you devalue the entire movement. That’s like supporting women’s rights just so you can sell them pants, or supporting equal opportunities for minorities just so you can get more customers in your store…
Posted on at