Difference between revisions of "User talk:Patri/LowCostSeasteadDesignProposal"
(→WaterWalker: new section) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | == Forum == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Please add comments on [http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/User:Patri/LowCostSeasteadDesignProposal this forum thread] | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Comments == | ||
I think it is better to say "single family seastead" than "Low cost seastead". If we get a $1 million seastead that has better safety, stability, and room than a $4 million yacht we are doing well. But not clear that $1 mil is "lost cost". [[User:Vincecate|Vincecate]] 05:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | I think it is better to say "single family seastead" than "Low cost seastead". If we get a $1 million seastead that has better safety, stability, and room than a $4 million yacht we are doing well. But not clear that $1 mil is "lost cost". [[User:Vincecate|Vincecate]] 05:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 19:56, 1 December 2008
Forum
Please add comments on this forum thread
Comments
I think it is better to say "single family seastead" than "Low cost seastead". If we get a $1 million seastead that has better safety, stability, and room than a $4 million yacht we are doing well. But not clear that $1 mil is "lost cost". Vincecate 05:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Im not too sure about putting 'move itself at a few knots' under absolute.
If it can be implemented more efficiently than a tugboat could, then sure. But until we make that likely, i think a more general formulation like 'be movable at a few knots' would be better.
WaterWalker
Vince's latest design seems to meet quite a few of these requirements. It may be a little too wide to dock, however, but I think everything else matches beautifully. Just a thought.
