Let me start by saying that my comments are my personal opinions and even though this one might read as a postulate, it wasn’t intended as such and shouldn’t be taken as such. All my comments have an automatic “IMHO” attached to them.
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
True to a certain extent. But even outside the “hurricane alley” there will be strong storms. And that’s a fact. There is no reason whatsoever NOT to allocate an extra 10% on the initial capital investment for propulsion in order to be on the much safer side.
I guess it could be done. But what would the price tag be? Maybe in the $ Billions range? But forget about the price tag,…There is no 100% guarantee on a claim that a seastead can sustain a Cat.5 hurricane BEFORE if does so. And that’s a fact.
If so, all the seasteaders (100, 500, 5000, etc, souls) on that $ billion seastead are now just “hurricane testing lab rats”, brainwashed to blindly believe the builder’s mantra, “trust me since I say so, you will be perfectly safe”.
The Titanic was advertised as unsinkable too, and the unthinkable happened.
Please keep in mind that “Riding a storm at sea” means literally just that: A STORM but not a hurricane. Such action of riding a storm at seas it is a “preferred option” when it outweighs the dangers of your boat sustaining more damage if riding a storm anchored in tight quarters or docked in a marina if facing a direct hit.
All ships, included US Navy, cruise lines, commercials, etc. had evacuated in front of Irma’s path. I will stick to that wise decision that it is much “cheaper” to protect your assets rather then unnecessary test their strength.
Seasteads don’t necessary have to move faster than a hurricane. They should be able to move ahead of time to safety on an optional hurricane avoidance route.
But why can’t seasteads move faster than a hurricane? Just put a bigger engine on and they’ll easily do 30 knots…
“A Good Run Is Better Than A Bad Stand”