Talk:SpecificDesignProposals2009

"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"? Vincecate

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. Vincecate

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

A spar is a single column that gets stability from having the center of mass below the center of flotation (probably with ballast). A semisubmersible gets stability from having several floating chambers spread out over some width. That the metal for heave resistance was not used to make horizontal connections underwater just makes for a structurally weak semi-submersible design (foolish really), not something fundamentally different.

You say you want to start with 50 people but say spars don't scale down even though Flip Ship is for much less than 50 people. So it was a bogus claim. If you want to say spars need deep water and would not work as a BayStead, that would be accurate. Or that spars don't seem cost effective for seasteads. Again, I have no love for spars, I just think this should be accurate.

Just seems odd to have announced a new direction without writing up what it is. Look forward to seeing it. Vincecate

All designs get stability from both the shifting of their center of flotation, and the height of their COG relative to COF to some extent; if we take COG<COF as the criteria for something being a spar, then indeed clubstead is not. There is some use to the classification multi-spar: seadrome is more a multi-spar than a semi-sub.

I agree with your point about structural strength; compared to, say, minifloat, its definitely a structural downgrade. But it looks prettier, I suppose...

Scaling down people isnt the problem; just put in less beds. Scaling down physical size and capital costs; thats the hard part, obviously. If we wish to stick to some form of baysteading as an incremental step (and i think we should), then the maximum draft is severly constrained. SF is deep, as far as bays are concerned, and im not sure if well be able to get away with 20m even there. Thats 1/5th of the smallest proven spar design.

As for the design we have in mind, ill do an attempt at a quick summary: supress roll by modularly connecting multiple seasteads; by flexible connections capable of complying with long waves in big storms; supress heave by means of a stunted spar-ish design somewhere between a SCS and monolith. A 20m keel 'should' suffice to keep the shorter T < 8s waves out, which are most compromising in terms of comfort. Getting a quantified handle on that is what is keeping me from getting our writings out there. There are some unforeseen troubles down that road, and id rather clear them first than reformat text that might be outdated in a week or two. Patri