Octavian – I have decided to start the Market Feasibility here. I will switch to the Landlubber’s Guide to Seasteading Feasibility shortly. Let me start by defining some common terms in market feasibility: trade area, sphere of influence, primary market — Imagine a circle around your local cinema complex of about 30-minutes drive time. This is the trade area. This circle will bump up against another cinema circle possibly 60-minutes drive time away. So the cinema supply is comprised of drive time circles with a 30-minute radius. Of course in the real world these circles bump and distort into amoeba shapes — but this can be plotted on a map. A point of information — 30-minutes drive time for a 90-minute experience. This is an approximation of course. IN Iowa it might be a 45-minute drive and in New Jersey a 20-minute drive. This is just the first step — Now it gets to be more fun. Now assume you live exactly 30-minutes form a Regal Cinema to the east and an identical Regal Cinema 30-minutes to the west — ticket price and popcorn price is identical. Where do you go to the cinema to see “Seasteading the Movie.” Probability theory suggests you go to each 50% of the time. That was easy — but now the fun begins and we will shortly apply this to locating seasteads. Assume you are 10-minutes to “Seasteading the Movie” 10-minutes to the west an 50-minutes to the east. Probability theory suggest you will visit the cinema to the west 80% of the time and to the easy 20% of the time. We are now analyzing the market feasibility. I will shortly apply this to Polynesia versus Bahamas — It may surpass you. Ted
i am not yet certain of the communication protocol. I am writing to ForexBob but also directed to JL_Frusha — So here goes: Bob has identified and formulate a feasible project — Marinea. I do not agree with all of his thoughts – but in principal and can “prove” — remember math — His Marinea concept is feasible and thus will be implemented. I myself am trying to enable this — JL — has possibly the most vision of us all. I might help on the demand side. ted
It’s a good question, What is already out there that meets the criteria of a small seastead or a floating city? What is the starting point to improve on?
Elmer’s submarines… One on the bottom of Lake Attersee, the other abandoned before completion… Great examples…
One cannot expect an unattended vessel to stay floating forever, especially when tampered with.
Great, Matias. So where are the current seastead projects starting from those things you pictured, and how do they get to seasteading from where they are now, especially when most of the “now” people, processes, and technology have zero intentional interest in seasteading, only caring about ocean operations in terms of making sea occupations pay for land lifestyles?
The one in Lake Attersee has other obvious issues, not just the damaged seal, which should have been better engineered, to protect the seal.
The sail was added well after initial launch and has separated, and there is spalling, which, in that cold water, should not exist, short of an impact.
The abandoned project shows the same lack of an integral sail, as well.
deleted to accomodate new forum politics | @thebastidge
All postings beyond 27.june withdrawn …
None of which links you’ve posted lead to an active, in-progress, verifiable project to create structures at sea intended to provide permanent living space to individuals and families and communities as a primary function of the structure, rather than simply providing transportation across the water or workspace for a business function which is related to transporting things across the water.
That’s not colonization. McMurdo Station is not an effort to colonize Antarctica. A space station which only has short and long term worker rotation and no families would not be space colonization, either. Ocean colonization means people moving to and living permanently on/in/or under the ocean.
Dude. It’s a thin premise that you’re “tired” of explaining something over and over again, when you have never actually addressed it in the first place. (As in where are “current seastead projects starting from those things [Matias] pictured, and how do they get to seasteading from where they are now, especially when most of the “now” people, processes, and technology have zero intentional interest in seasteading, only caring about ocean operations in terms of making sea occupations pay for land lifestyles?”)
Links are for adding information to a conversation, not taking the place of being constructive. Nobody who is a regular in the forum needs a link to your site. They’ve been spammed with them interminably. People who are new to the forum are turned off by seeing them everywhere. Especially when it all turns out to be chatter about seasteading and not examples of seasteading.
Posting the same links over and over ( and now as “search terms”) doesn’t make any point, doesn’t convince anyone, and ruins your credibility as a person who could contribute.
Let me be clear- I’m not saying that those technologies can’t or don’t contribute to the discussion of what kind of engineering is possible and currently in use. But as @tamenta has pointed out over and over- where is the feasibility study, and what is the justification for actually building it? What is the plan to get from an engineering possibility, to a practical, built, lifestyle environment on the ocean.
The Marinea guys have a plan, whether it works or not, they have some semblance of a plan.
Then a moderator should delete those comments and spare the rest of us the grief of reading Elmo’s non-stop spam.
deleted to accomodate the new forum administrator | @thebastidge |
All postings beyond 27.june withdrawn …
It was also noted that the primary results either link directly to your websites or back here, to this forum, then looping back to your websites, via the spam links, here.
However, he did something unusual, and gained some kind of knowledge and experience through doing it. I still admire the effort. As you point out yourself, there is benefit in doing, even if it’s not perfect, even if you ultimately fail, even if other people have done something similar. Don’t let distaste for forum tactics overshadow actual accomplishment.
Let’s try to move back towards civility in the forum. Some forgiveness and mutual space when reasonable accommodation can be given.
Understood. I tried civility, until the constant aggression against documentation and honesty in posts finally pushed my last button.
I will ‘reset’, when they do. Matias is still being aggressive, even in PMs.
I tried to give credit where due, for the initial success, even lamented the unnecessary damage and demise of the 1st one, and would bet that the war on drugs caused, in part, the demise of the 2nd ferrocement submarine.
I have tried calling for a truce, to no avail.
I do not see where Matias is still aggressive, but this might make me
being aggressive. I donno. So post withdrawn by whatever or whatever.
I am writing to you all on this “thread.” — I have had “side bar” communication with several individually. As I have said previously — I am trying to formulate a “prototype.” I want to conceptualize an ideal seastead. Permit me to shift your thinking to my approach. Imagine there is a seastead prototype. — This is a singular concept that can be placed in Polynesia, Cay Sal and Cartagena or off the north coast of Bahrain — The project is identical. So in this case location is important. In the Polynesia and Cartagena situation. Assume the identical sea stead — residential, aquaculture, incubator and supportive retail and services ---- Which is the better location? Polynesia/ Gulf of Mexico? Bahamas? Cartagena? ----- I am trained to answer this question. Polynesia is the worst location by far— not finically feasible; not market feasible. Is any one interested why? ted
Gulf of Mexico is hurricane alley. My honest recommendation for anything larger than, say, a mega yacht, presumably smaller than an oil rig, would be elsewhere, unless it has a hull designed for and proven to handle those conditions, unless you plan to move it multiple times a year.
Not being contrary, or contradictory, given my preferences to use a Ramform hull for a family scale seastead, in the GoMex. I may not be a marine architect, or naval engineer, but I can read and compare published capabilities quite effectively.
Yes, go ahead write more.
I have a blog too: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AquaticLifestyle/info
Don’t know your reasoning, but our reasoning is it’s terrible place to make a new nation.
This coming from people who made South Pacific our Alpha Site, which we’re abandoning in favour of Beta Site.
Our reasoning are:
- There’s nothing left suitable enough for a seastead there. It’s either shallows or deep sea. All shallows are already someone’s property. All less suitable places of around 500 meter deep are also inside someone’s dominion. The only thing you have left is the deep dark sea. You can’t do anything there unless you just want to run around in a boat. But that’s not seasteading. You can’t fly your own flag, and you’re under the jurisdiction of whichever flag you’re flying.
- Their islands and atolls are too spread apart. This means that even if you manage to find a nice spot 200nm away from all islands, there’s a good chance that it’s actually in very middle of a nation’s maritime zone. You are therefore at that nation’s mercy.
- The EEZs of existing nations over there are too wide. No matter where you stick your seastead, your EEZ will always overlap with someone else;s EEZ. They will never share or redraw their EEZ just to accomodate you. So you’re left with either being satisfied with a small EEZ or going into conflict with a real nation.
- Unless you have a large structure around the size of a VLCC tanker, sticking anything there in the open ocean is suicide. The islands are protected by coral reefs, a floating seastead or a seastead fixed to the ocean floor (assuming you can find an ocean floor not within someone’s EEZ) will not have such protection.
- They are very paranoid and distrustful of new ventures.