Forum Replies Created
June 12, 2014 at 12:00 pm #23656
er,smith, how necessary is it to disscuss lengthy and forum cluttering about the OBVIOUS ?
Hello, Kettle? This is the Pot. You’re black.June 12, 2014 at 8:22 am #23654
in the USA there is little that is sacrosanct (or pretty)
Er, you need to be careful in throwing out statements like that:
It would be interesting to see if those that chose to experiment
That is the key here, isn’t it. You have to design a system that would allow inhabitants like Ken and I to stay in a place we have designed and enjoy, while allowing others to demo-and-rebuild at will. Where do all the materials come from? Do they have to pay for a new home each time? Will you expect inhabitants like Ken and I to subsidize those others who wish to keep rebuilding? What about infrastructure…will these experimental designs still have to conform to standards for safety/power/communication/waste? I think you need to put a little more thought into the basics of the system.
Families that have little foundation produce children who are far less able to cope in the world.
Show some sources for your information, please. I happen to know several people who came from military backgrounds. They moved all over the world, never in one place for a very long time, and they are very capable of coping in the world…perhaps more so than some people whose families have lived in the same little town for four generations. I really don’t think consistent architecture has a large impact on one’s ability to survive in the world.March 13, 2014 at 8:37 am #23097
all the house are the same.
That’s the beauty of the 3D printing idea…every house can be custom-created for the individual user. The reason all the houses in your example are the same is because a single construction company used the same forms over-and-over to build each house. With 3D printing the customer can sit down and create their own custom house, upload the blueprint, and the machine builds the house exactly to those specifications down to outlet, conduit, and window locations. If anything 3D printing will cause more variation in structures in a given area.
Plus, there’s no steel rebar
Contour Crafting has a whole section of their technical paper where they discuss using the robotic arm to insert reinforcement systems, from steel mesh to other advanced materials.
You can find the paper here: http://contourcrafting.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AIC2004-Paper1.pdf
I believe what is so interesting about this technology is the ability to customize the rig for all situations. A rig that prints houses in a hurricane zone can be customized to use high-strength reinforcing materials, while a rig that prints houses in another area might not require that module.
Plus you can use this technology to print subsections as well, just walls and slabs that users can then assemble on the fly. Even furniture can be custom printed. This will allow a seastead to be self-reliant when it comes to on-site construction and fabrication.January 31, 2014 at 3:08 pm #22781
how do i attach them to a structure in a way they don’t shatter?
You don’t attach the mooring system at all. If you’re talking about using a sphere like ellmer then I would use some kind of netting, like this:
Then you simply attach the looped part to a mooring line (or lines, preferably) and you’re set. There is no single attachment point to act as the single point of failure, or that takes all the stress.
You could use this method even if the submerged habitat wasn’t a sphere. It would work fine for fish cages as well…January 3, 2014 at 6:01 pm #22596
I didn’t say the billionaire would build the seastead. Do you even read? The billionaire would form a sovereign nation that would act as a ship registry to supply seasteads with a flag of convenience. People are on their own building their own seasteads based on whatever they like.
And you’ll need a billionaire to build the seastead as well. If you think US$167M is a lot for 300 people in protected waters, what do you think it will be on the open ocean?January 3, 2014 at 11:19 am #22591
but we didn’t even touch the subject of owning territorial waters and an EEZ
Once you have an ocean-facing sovereign piece of land, you automatically have territorial waters and an EEZ. You have to enter into negotiations with neighboring nations to work out the borders, etc. But those are rights granted to sovereign nations in UNCLOS, not something you have to pay for.
you might not get shit if mobile
Under UNCLOS you can declare a “safety zone” around artificial installations of up to 500m. Not exactly an EEZ but it’s something…
Since you own the floating island, claim it as territory and try for state recognition NOT WITH UN, but first with “cool” states like Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, etc,
We’ve had this debate before…I don’t care how “cool” the state is there is no one who is going to grant territory status to a floating block of concrete. I don’t care how much dirt is piled up on it, or how big it is, or how well established your online micronation is. The only chance you would have of getting “territory” would be if you built up a structure from the ocean floor, and even then I think it improbable.
Without territory (platform or island, no matter which) there is no sovereignty. Built or buy don’t really matter. For sovereignty you’ll have to invest, no matter what. Yes maybe the foolproof way might be to have a country cede a piece of sovereign land….but that could turn out to be he most expensive way.
It is still my opinion that you cannot build territory, so it does matter. I believe that getting an existing country to sell you a piece of land, which then becomes its own sovereign country, is the best course of action. Will it be expensive? You bet. Incredibly expensive.
But, as I’ve said in other threads, we don’t need a huge piece of land. It can be a crappy piece of blasted rock in the middle of nowhere. As long as it’s recognized as a sovereign nation we can create our own ship registry and allow mobile or stationary seasteads to fly our own flag. We can create a Seastead Nation which exists for the sole purpose of allowing seasteads of all kinds to be flagged under an existing state. This Seastead Nation will not care what kind of government you have on your seastead, what kind of construction it is. It will have no say in how you run your seastead, although there may have to be some restrictions for the sake of maintaining some good relations (no human trafficking, weapons of mass destruction, etc). It will allow seasteads on the high seas to be flagged, so as to avoid the rules about un-flagged vessels, and yet retain near complete autonomy.
So we don’t need an entire atoll. Just something that stays above the water surface and allows us to maintain a permanent population and working government. It doesn’t even need to be on the water, although that would be nice. I’m sure we could possibly convince Eritrea, which is a highly corrupt nation with a GDP of only US$3B, to part with one of the small islands in the bay outside Asseb in the Southern Red Sea Region. It may cost a billion or so, but imagine how much further that billion would go to advancing seasteading than the money so far spent. If only we knew of a billionaire who is a huge proponent of seasteading…June 10, 2013 at 2:02 pm #22028
>There’s other reasons for a balloon to fall down,
>But if the wind stops, i hope the generator up there doesn’t land in the ocean!
>It would have to be reeled in if the winds die down
I was responding to both of you discussing what to do if the winds die down, not any kind of failure situation.
Bird hits aren’t going to do anything, because even if a bird runs into the wind turbine and damages it, the aerostat stays aloft. You can just reel in the aerostat, repair/replace the turbine, and then let the aerostat back up to production height.
You certainly don’t have to worry about deterioration. Aerostats do not use plastic, the envelope is usually a treated fabric (like coated ripstop nylon) or some other treated material such as the High Strength Laminated Aerostat Material (HSLAM) used by Raven Industries. The HSLAM has been tested in extreme situations like severe summer thunderstorms and extreme high temperatures, and nylon is incredibly weather resistant. They will most certainly not break down from “being out in the sun all day”.
You also don’t have to worry about lightning strikes, as most aerostats are designed to survive them by using hardened tethers and other methods. It’s possible the turbines attached to the aerostat could be damaged, but again you just reel in the aerostat, repair/replace the turbine, and then send it back up.
Hits by aircraft are easily avoided as well by notifying all surrounding air traffic about the location of the aerostats. Plus, your seastead is probably not going to be anywhere near where low-flying planes are travelling. There are plenty of methods, from radio signals to beacon lights, to protect from the odd low-flying plane.
And if you are worried about meteor strikes then your risk-benefit analysis is WAY too detailed.June 10, 2013 at 1:41 pm #22027
There are plenty of groups experimenting with large-scale concrete 3D printing, for applications in the housing industry. This is both high-throughput printing of modules and components that are assembled on-site, all the way up to large-scale printing of entire structures.
Future of Construction Process: 3D Concrete Printing
There is no reason why you couldn’t design a large-scale concrete 3D printer that can create entire single-family seasteads…or modules for creating large modular concrete structures.
Seacrete is a non-starter. Never going to happen.June 7, 2013 at 9:10 am #22024
First of all, the point of using an airborne wind turbine is that the turbine is at a height where the wind never dies down. You raise the turbine up into the high wind streams that are constantly circulating the globe. You’re never going to get as high as the jet stream, but there are constant winds at 800-1000m that never stop. So you get constant power generation.
Secondly, most airborne turbines don’t actually use the wind to stay aloft. You use aerostats or large balloons that have their own lifting force, with large wind turbines attached. You let the balloons go up to a high altitude, where the wind turbines generate power. So if for some reason the wind dies down the turbines stop producing power, but the balloon stays in the air.
An airborne turbine would definately put a larger force on a seastead than a tower turbine, but that is because it is generating MORE power due to 1) the higher wind speeds at higher altitudes, and 2) the constant wind as opposed to intermittent wind at lower altitudes. Also the aerostat itself will be affected by the wind, and the drag will be felt by the seastead. So you’ll have to design your station-keeping system to handle the higher loads…June 7, 2013 at 8:54 am #22023
Well they made $345 just for shooting a video with their iphone and editing it with MSPaint so it wasn’t a total bust. “A sucker born every minute” is underestimating the number of suckers and the rate at which they are born…May 22, 2013 at 8:47 am #21984
1) Build where there aren’t any of those things
2) Utilize breakwater structures to protect the main seastead
3) Build big, so there is less impact on the structureApril 24, 2013 at 3:31 pm #21921
Very few details available.
The video talks about using sodium, but the flyer shows lithium. He does mention lithium in the video, but there is no other information available. What is the organic liquid electrolyte? What output levels do the lab-scale demos produce (kg of gas, liter of water, etc) for various currents? What type of flow rates are required to replenish the sodium in the seawater electrolyte?
It’s possible that details were in the Apr10 meeting, but as far as I can see there aren’t any minutes, slides, or video of the event. So, this is vaporware in my opinion…March 14, 2013 at 2:54 pm #21830
I can confirm you can neither edit nor delete a post, even right after you have posted it.
POS software. TSI sure wanted to kill these forums and they did a bang-up job…March 14, 2013 at 2:53 pm #21829
Ugh, garbage WordPress. Sorry, all my indentations and formatting weren’t carried over when I clicked submit. Much of my post was taken from the books, and were indented as quotes. Sorry if it’s hard to follow. And you can’t edit or delete a post, even right after you submit it.
POS forum software…March 14, 2013 at 2:50 pm #21828
I’ve been working on this question a lot: is there even such a thing as “artificial natural land”? There is very little, if any, legal precedent regarding this issue. Mostly what I can determine is that UNCLOS considers anything manmade as “artificial”. So if you dump a bunch of boulders on a seamount, dredge a bunch of sand onto a sandbar, or build a condeep structure…those are all “artificial islands” in regards to UNCLOS, which means no territorial waters or sovereignty.
This is generally considered different from artificial efforts to prevent the loss of existing territorial land or waters. So, for instance, building an artificial island 30km from your shore in the attempt to extend your territorial waters or EEZ is generally condemned and prevented. However, constantly working to prevent a small islet from being worn down by erosion by constantly adding new materials is permissible, because you are preventing the loss of existing territory. A great read is “Artificial Islands and Structures as a Means of Safeguarding State Sovereignty Against Sea Level Rise”:
Upgrading the status of a rock and preventing its diminution follow a totally different mindset. While prevention is considered to be permissible, as it is an action that does not intent to expand land and maritime sovereignty, upgrading is an act that is being condemned as abusive and expansionist. In most cases, it is really hard to distinguish which of the two practices take place, as well as to find liable scientific data in order to support one or the other position. The case of Okinotorishima is highly illustrative of the controversies that can stem up by this category.
The Okinotorishima case they refer to is a dispute between China and Japan over some small islets in the Philippine Sea. China claims they are rocks, which under UNCLOS would not allow Japan to use them to extend its EEZ. Japan claims they are islands and has spent a considerable amount of money and effort and materials to keep them above water. So are they rocks? Are they islands? Are they “artificial islands” because of all the manmade structures and materials that have been added? Again, it would seem that since Japan is working to prevent the loss of territory it already claimed then the judgement is in its favor. If it were building up an area that was never above water in the first place, in an effort to artificially claim more territory, it would be the opposite. Since this is what we plan with establishing an “artificial natural land” seastead we can only envision the same type of judgement.
However all hope is not lost. A great resource for these issues is “The International Legal Regime of Artifical Islands” by Nikos Papadakis. In it he talks a lot about the legal status of artificial islands, and makes a distinction between “artificial structures, platforms, and floating or fixed installations in general” and what he calls “Sea-Cities…artificial islands erected and used for urban purposes”.
In terms of legal status, the paramount feature of a Sea-City is that it must have a territorial sea in the same way that a natural island has one…It is further submitted that the following considerations have to be taken into account in attributing the legal status of a Sea-City to an artificial island. First, the artificial island in question must essentially be an island in the same sense that a natural island is an island; that means that is must (a) be ‘surrounded by water’, and (b) show permanently above water at high tide. Secondly, in so far as it is an artificial island, as opposed to a natural one, it must, nevertheless, be ‘of the nature of territory’. This last qualification is not intended to mean that the artificial island must literally be a ‘portion of territory’ or a ‘true tract of land’, as a natural island is, but that it must have the essential characteristics of a portion of territory. Its capability of being subjected to the sovereignty of a State as ‘territory’, and a degree of permanence similar to that possessed by a natural island appear to be the essential characteristics required…….Finally, the foremost criterion is that the artificial island in question must be inhabited and, for all practical purposes, form a self-sufficient community….It would thus appear that this criterion is satisfied only by an artificial island erected, and in fact used, for urban purposes, that is a Sea-City.
His major proposal is that a Sea-City requires a territorial sea, rather than the safety zone granted to artificial islands and installations by UNCLOS.
The rationale behind this proposal becomes clear if it is considered why a coastal State extends its sovereignty outside the limits of its land territory over a sea-belt around its coast. The reasons for the establishment of a territorial sea zone have been stated aptly as follows:
“The reasons which justify the extension of the sovereignty of a State outside the limits of its land territory are always the same. They may be summarized under the following heads:
(i) the security of the State demands that it should have exclusive possession of its shores and that it should be able to protect its approaches;
(ii) for the purpose of furthering its commercial, fiscal and political interests, a State must be able to supervise all ships entering, leaving or anchoring in its territorial waters;
(iii) the exclusive exploitation and enjoyment of the products of the sea within a State’s territorial waters is necessary for the existence and welfare of the people on its coasts. Hall upholds the necessity of the maritime belt on the ground that unless the right to exercise control were admitted, no sufficient security would exist for the lives and property of the subjects of the State upon land”.
It is only too clear that these reasons hold true for the projected Sea-Cities. The security, economic, fiscal, political and other interests of the population of the Sea-City have to be protected in the same way that the interests of any other population living on a naturally formed land are protected according to the principles sanctioned by international law. It should make no difference in law the formation of ‘land’ upon which a population is living. The paramount feature is the protection of the interests and welfare of the people, and the establishment of a mere safety zone around a Sea-City, however extensive, is not sufficient to safeguard the interests of the local population.
So we shouldn’t be overly concerned with the materials or methods we use to create our seastead. Whether we pile up garbage on a seamount or build a tower attached to the sea floor, it’s not the form that matters. What matters is that:
1) The seastead be built up from the seafloor, either resting on permanent supports or built up directly using aggregated materials. A floating seastead, even one permanently moored, would have a more difficult time pretending to be “territory”.
2) The seastead be very large and have a very large, permanent population as well as the infrastructure required to support that population in a highly self-sufficient manner.
So I would go with whatever method allowed for both those criteria, regardless of whether you are using “natural land” or just concrete supports. But, as Papadakis writes:
It is true that this is not a principle of lex lata. The problem of the Sea-City has not been faced yet in a practical way and probably it will not have to be faced for quite a number of years to come.