Forum Replies Created
March 7, 2015 at 11:35 am #26025
Ah good catch, I missed that bit.
Well maybe they are going to combine the new seasteading show with their big hit “When Sharks Attack”:
“From America’s coastline to exotic beaches around the world, the number of reported shark attacks has increased in the last half-century. When Sharks Attack investigates the reasons why nature’s most feared fish seem to be suddenly targeting humans.”March 6, 2015 at 8:12 pm #26011
the production company, Optomen
Where do you see info that this production company will be involved? The last I saw it will probably be shown on the Fusion network which is a mix of Disney/ABC and Univision…which makes sense considering one of their shows is “The Cannabusiness Report”. They do seem to have a good mix of documentary/reality shows and drama/comedy.
The shows I’ve seen in the list, “Two Fat Ladies” and the “Hairy Biker” series involve cooking.
Don’t forget “Sex Toy Stories” and “Will My Crash Diet Kill Me?”. Quality programming…
I expect the location to be the North Sea
Which do you think gets better ratings? A bunch of people covered up under layers of thick clothing in the cold of the North Sea, or a bunch of nubile 20-somethings in bikinis prancing around in the Gulf? There is one reason why they haven’t done a season of “Survivor:Alaska”:
Ok, maybe that’s two reasons…March 6, 2015 at 10:08 am #26009
At that point there would be two structures
Did your agreement with the host nation…whose territorial waters you are anchored in…mention two structures? They might not be happy with you filling the bay with structures nobody agreed on.
And what happens when the people who want to leave all want to go to different places? Do they all setup their own agreements with new host nations? Is each structure mobile on its own, or do you need tugs to pull you around? Who pays for that?
Sorry, dynamic geography just cannot work in reality. It looks great on paper, and makes pretty computer graphics, but it just isn’t a viable solution.March 6, 2015 at 10:01 am #26008
we offer the same price for construction of ANY shape
And how many massive submerged concrete spheres have you built?
Meanwhile there are dozens of gravity base structures in operation around the world in a wide variety of environments, from oil rigs to wind farms, some of which have been in use since the 70’s. I guess if the “only opinion that matters is the opinion of the people that actually invest money” then we know whose opinion to listen too…March 6, 2015 at 9:58 am #26007
You are not called to decide which concept to seasteading is going to be developed further and which not.
I’m not deciding anything. I’m just offering my reasoning why I think certain designs are more or less likely to succeed.
The only opinion that matters is the opinion of the people that actually invest money in seasteading ventures
Then we might as well close shop, because at last count I don’t see anyone investing any money in any seasteading ventures.
I choose to see this forum as a place to hash out ideas, discuss designs, and fine-tune plans and proposals…rather than just a place to hook up with potential investors in marine businesses. It has worked well for me…I have refined my designs several times based off discussions I have had with users.
Perhaps there are other websites you can go to, where the focus is more on making money and starting up marine businesses rather than something more revolutionary like seasteading and creating new sovereign nations on the sea…March 6, 2015 at 9:46 am #26006
I built a giant submarine
And did you “get a chance to reach a higher funding level”?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.
Posted on at