|
|
| (7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | "Spar Platforms have already been explored through ClubStead, single spars are too small, breakwaters are too big. "
| + | The content on possible designs and which is best was moved to [[SpecificDesignProposals2009]], so the related discussion was moved there to. |
| | | | |
| − | ClubStead is not a spar. FlipShip is a spar. FlipShip proves that single spars are not too small (as do all the other oil spars).
| |
| | | | |
| − | Why not see some models tested in waves before deciding that TSI will focus on "wave blankets"? | + | Why specify 50 people as a requirement? I guess the [[seastead|seastead strategy]] you are using is the [[Floating City Seastead]]? It seems to rule out other reasonable strategies. Seems like you could ask for proposals in a more general way so that you did not specify the strategy ahead of time. [[User:Vincecate|Vincecate]] 15:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC) |
| − | | |
| − | -- Vince
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Clubstead incorporates elements of a spar; although its likely better classified as a semi-sub.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The problem with oil-spars is obviously not them being too small, but them being too big. It remains to be seen if the concept scales down to non-hundereds of million dollar size.
| |
| − | | |
| − | One could regard the flipship as an attempt to that effect; but a failed one as far as seasteading is concerned. The ratio of real-estate to material use is ridiculous, as is the ratio of real-estate per 2009-dollar. We could plausibly do a lot better than that, but then again; wed need to do lots and lots better.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Overall, I think any deep-draft concept is at odds with incrementalism. The flip ship is 100m deep when deployed, and if we want to make this thing affordable, its flipping capability is the first thing we should let go of. How many docking spots even offer 10m? The entire bay doesnt go a whole lot deeper than that.
| |
| − | | |
| − | I dont think the term 'wave blankets' is very descriptive; i like 'generalized catamaran' or 'multi-hull' or somesuch better. Im working on describing in detail what we have in mind with that. | |
| − | | |
| − | -- Eelco
| |
| − | | |
| − | What "elements of a spar" do you think ClubStead has? I think it has none of the characteristics of a spar and all the characteristics of a semi-sub.
| |
| − | | |
| − | I agree that deep-draft things are probably a bad thing to start with. I am not saying I want a FlipShip design as my seastead, just that the claim you can not make small spars is not accurate.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Having TSI picking "wave blankets", or whatever you end up calling them, when they have not even been written up yet, smacks of stupid central planning types thinking they can pick the winning technology.
| |
| − | | |
| − | It would be good to at least have a page on this new direction in the wiki.
| |
| − | | |
| − | -- Vince
| |
The content on possible designs and which is best was moved to SpecificDesignProposals2009, so the related discussion was moved there to.
Why specify 50 people as a requirement? I guess the seastead strategy you are using is the Floating City Seastead? It seems to rule out other reasonable strategies. Seems like you could ask for proposals in a more general way so that you did not specify the strategy ahead of time. Vincecate 15:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
