Grouped islands instead of one huge seastead?

(Chad Elwartowski) #1

As my design has focused on triangle shaped seasteads, I had an idea for the political/community structure of the seastead.

The first seastead would be a floating triangular (prism) structure with 60 degree angles at the very basic level. This person can allow/rent two sides of his structure to two other people who would then attach on either side of him. It would be agreed from then on that they now “own” 60 degrees going out as far as they wish, but not encroaching upon the other person’s 60 degrees.

In all, 6 different people/companies/families can attach at a central point and co-exist in whatever social/political structure they wish to set up. They can grow outwards as they wish. It can grow for one or several or none at all, however they wish to set things up.

In such a setup it, should someone wish it, they can pull out of the community any time they wish. Just float their slice of the “pie” out and go where they please. Thus allowing for the original idea of seasteading where if you don’t like something you can just move.

I could see several of these little islands forming, each with their own uniqueness with the ability to just motor from one to another as needed. (I also believe that without government regulations other forms of transportation will pop up in a spectacular way…flying, underwater, etc).

Any thoughts on this approach? I tend to focus upon modularity and flexibility as we all tend to be unique and a one size fits all approach is an outdated approach.

(Wilfried Ellmer) #2

@Elwar | If we want to apply the principle “vote with your boat” - the units need to be independent … so a cluster of structures is certainly more convenient…than one big city sized island.

(Bob LLewellyn) #3

Still need some kind of a wall or wave reducer. If it is a wall then would every unit have its own wall boarder?

(Theodore M. Amenta) #4

Ewar: — I have not seen your triangular platform designs. Please post. I have studied this as well. Note than the edge of a platform is more expensive than the platform surface itself. This argues for a more square, pentagon, hexagon, octagon ---- shape. I hope to share my work thus far — If I can post. Ted

(Chad Elwartowski) #5


Here is the link to the basic concept.

I have since focussed on the structure design itself.

(Theodore M. Amenta) #6

I like your managing the triangular geometry with the stair etc. I am concerned, based on reading, with the stability of such a small individual unit. I have no experience in this. We are working at different scales. I am working on 5 joined platforms to accommodate 300 residents, lodging, office and support services — with a public area. Others are discussing a public square on a single barge as the center for a community of 3,000. I may illustrate this as an alternative. Ted

(Chad Elwartowski) #7

Stability with 6 anchors should be sufficient. The lighter it is, the more stable.

(Michael David Lipkan) #8

Anarchy results from too much freedom. Floating cities will need ways of maintaining law and order. The future will necessarily be complex for our mutual survival and the preservation of science, art, culture, and history.

Modular design is essential but voting with your boat should not be an option. Not for real city/states at least.

(Chad Elwartowski) #9

One might say that anarchy creates freedom.

I don’t know the meaning of “too much freedom”.

(.) #10

"too much freedom"
How can equal human beings decide what is too much freedom
for each other?
There is newtalk already. (George Orwell: 1984 “newtalk”)
Here we are talking about anarchy as natural laws.
Human laws lead to chaos, corruption and lawlessness.

(.) #11

Now I am going to look for kelp.

(Chad Elwartowski) #12

Laws lead to corruption.

Corruption leads to chaos.

Chaos leads to…suffering.

(.) #13

I found kelp. And Posts should be twenty characters or more.


NOOOO…LOL. It will bounce around,…

NOOOO, …LOL. You are just thinking so based on your perception of reality,…The future is not “complex” or otherwise… LOL, IT DIDN’T HAPPEN YET.

(Chad Elwartowski) #15

If the mooring lines are taught with the force pulling up due to buoyancy then there can be no upward movement beyond the length of the lines. The only movement can be a downward force. More buoyancy means less downward pressure. When all you have to work with is attachments to the sea floor you can only create downward force and angled side forces.

The less buoyant it is the closer it will be to the wave forces.

I understand that this is counter intuitive due to picturing existing structures such as boats and buoys that are made to bounce up and down with the waves, lighter will bounce up and down more than heavier objects.


There is always 5:1, 7:1, 10:1 anchor rode to water depth, depending on conditions…on a “regular” boat. I don’t know about 6 anchors and I don’t think it matters since it will still have TO HAVE slack.

Will behave similar but with less anchoring swing circle radius.

1000 tons is as buoyant as 10 tons but much “stable” in same sea states.

(Bob LLewellyn) #17

Chad, I’m afraid he’s right. It has to do with inertia. The heaver something is, the more energy it takes to change its speed or direction. If the energy changes directions all the time, it never gets enough in any direction to cause significant change. Objects in motion tend to stay in that motion unless acted on by another force. The change will be greater with a greater force, but little ones that come and go, won’t do much. But a lite barge will dance. We have to figure out some way to weight them. Wil suggested sand, pretty good idea really.


All depends on the mooring system. Something really ‘light’ may be buoyant enough to be top-heavy, but extremely stable in a tension mooring, the way many of the offshore oil and gas platforms are. Others might make use of catenary lines, such as a turret mooring system.


In the days of “wooden ships and iron men” the ballast was usually lead bars @ the lowest point of the bilge and later on (19th & 29th century) concrete bars.

The Spanish galleons (used from the 15th to the 17th century) used to leave empty (unballasted) for the New World and come back ballasted with silver and gold bars. :blush:

(Larry G) #20

Chad’s talking about tension leg platforms, where the platform is held lower in the water column than natural buoyancy would allow. Thus it never descends or rises with the wave crests, it is locked in place, vertically. It’s an expensive mooring system compared to anchors, usually using suction piles I believe. It also requires a structure that is large enough in the vertical dimension to extend well below and above the wave zone. It requires a number of (more expensive) mooring devices that almost certainly don’t scale down very well to “studio apartment” size, neither physically or economically. I believe that tension mooring also requires a bit of horizontal real estate to effectively keep the structure from swaying/tilting from lateral loading. Tension mooring costs and feasibility are dependent upon bottom composition and depth.

But the rest are also correct- more massive is still better. More resistance to transient lateral loads from a massive object. for buoyancy, it doesn’t matter how much it weighs, it only matters that it averages less dense than water, including all live loads.

Actually, I think they departed ballasted with rocks and came home ballasted with metal. I have read about lots of ancient vessels being found with rocks in the keel for ballast. They simply won’t ride right without weight deliberately added to the wooden keels.