Talk:ConceptualDesignProposal2009

"Spar Platforms have already been explored through ClubStead, single spars are too small, breakwaters are too big. "

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"?

 -- 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. You might say that traditional spar and semi-sub designs don't seem cost effective enough for seasteading.

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

You can regard it as four connected spars; thats how the design was concieved of, i believe. All semi-subs ive seen have horizontal hull sections; clubstead does not. Either way, its not a binary thing. Like i said, i agree clubstead is much more of a semi-sub; hence the reclassification.

Why is the claim regarding spars not accurate? How can you say so, without us quantifing 'small'? What we have in mind with small is definitely less than 100m. There do not exist any spar-type designs smaller than that, as far as i am aware, and there are good theoretical reasons to believe the concept wont scale down to the kind of small we have in mind.

And yes, thats exactly what we are trying to do; making our best informed guess at the winning technology. Thank you for your patience while we work on making our internal discussions accessible to everyone. We would love to hear your criticism on what weve been doing; but I do not really see the point of your criticisms of what you assume it is we are doing.

  -- Eelco