@ocean
In the first phase you are looking for a business that can easyly be done on a small structure, here are some ideas for the smallest thinkable starting point a small shell, barbecue island, bait barge, – the size of the starting point does not really matter, its business dynamics does…
Big things have small beginnings – transition capability key feature, transition of floating ventures, business afloat…
The size of the starting point doesn’t matter.
What matters is the force of the upcomming development DYNAMICS and the size of the POTENTIAL .
Summing up earlier discussion across the forums we have seen that a seastead will start small and grow to City size over time.
We also have clear now why the transition from baystead to open sea stead should be in the 400-800m range when the build exceed ship size signifficantly. The question that is up now is the TRANSITION question how do we get from a pod size to city size in a continous process and this brings us back to the question of MODULAR and how we define modular – although **rafting up modules** is a feasible way for a baystead – there are better ways to ensure “**continuous growth**” of a floating venture. Among those is “**ongoing slip forming**”, “**dot printing**”, and similar methods have been mentioned.
(Check more on how “modular can be defined better as “continuous growth capability” on the “matrix printing thread”)
The best way to ensure transition from small to big is to do something that “**projects into the future**” and makes **investors want to be part of the project**, instead of doing something “goofy” – the best example is Richi Sowas bottle island – it does not grow any longer because it is clear that there are strikt LIMITS what it “**can become in a future**” so in a sense its existance is rendered “useless” by the fact that it can NOT make a transition to a floating city, and i can not attract investment either, it just sits there as a “curiosity”. Therefore the capability of performing the **TRANSITION** from small to big, from baystead to “open seas stead”, should be seen as the key to the project of “building a seastead”. If you raft up bottles or houseboats you will NEVER make a successful transition to a floating city in open ocean and possible investors who have a basic knowledge of marine affairs can see that inmediatly. Nobody will invest into a “**no future venture**”. Therefore it is key to make the first small piece so strong and so credible already, that the claim “what you see here is the first step to colonize the oceans” will **provoke “investor interest”** – not a “laugh storm”. It is also key to put a working business and finance model on that piece as early as possible because like in a organism, growth can only take place if it is supported by a “strong beating heart” that can bear with the load of sustained growth. All this makes the “**credibility to investors**” the **key feature** to power the transition. So forget “bolting a couple of standard pontoons together” “use industrial barges” and that kind of “obvious solutions” that have “cero projection into a future” right away. You can even have a “ocean crossing floating platform” (like the floating neutrinos) and still be miles away from the goal to make a “credible and sucessful transition” to a floating city “VENICE style” where developers and investors would want to be a part of it. So again what sets a seastead apart from a “vessel” a “barge” or a “industrial pontoon raft up” is a **strong beating scalable economic heart**, that develops on board and opens the door to a brigh oceanic future attracting investment. Khalifa and Palm Dubai show the way how you get “marine infrastructure investment” and “real estate investment” on board. If you fail to build something that wakes up investor interest – seasteading will not happen. When building a seastead you need to avoid to build the “**seed of stagnation”** into the very concept. So build something that supports your claims (**oceanic future starts here**) make it DIFFERENT to anything that investors have seen before, but make it sufficient familiar in technology that it will not be percieved as “outlandish” either. CREDIBILITY is the key. The best way (i can think of in the moment) to get all those factors into a “reasonable equilibrium” and start very small right away – is the **Ramform seastead** built in concrete honeycomb and shell technology.
Read more about the Ramfrom:
http://concretesubmarine.activeboard.com/t51926036/establishing-a-ramform-floating-base-in-the-high-seas-concre/
See floating oceanic concret shell and honeycomb structures:
http://www.pinterest.com/wellmer/oceanic-concrete-shell-building/
See honeycomb shell structures:
http://www.pinterest.com/wellmer/concrete-shell-building-thin-shell-domes-honeycomb/
See Richi Sowas bottle island:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSpiral_Island&ei=cZotU7GvDNHNqQGej4CgAQ&usg=AFQjCNGCYDWvQDhjiYHsARWRut0zIWZErg&bvm=bv.62922401,d.eW0
Read more about how Venice is a historic model for seasteading:
http://concretesubmarine.activeboard.com/t56710025/venice-italy-how-to-do-instructions-for-seasteading-from-his/
Read more why going oceanic is the next big thing to go:
http://concretesubmarine.activeboard.com/t56680633/the-reasons-why-oceanic-business-is-the-next-big-thing-to-co/
You can build anything you want based on cement composite materials, you can make it as “light and non cracking” you want. You just need to get the process of combining the three base components cement, fibers, and fillers correctly. The whole idea of the concrete canoe competition is to SHOWCASE that you can – and althogh there are many (first semesters) failing in the intent – there are also many succeeding in the intent and that is the reason why i pointed to that event in first place
One of the intitial tests is to fill the canoe with water and it must STILL float – so the material itself must be lighter than water – the point is IF you succeded in building a shell that feels and behaves like a glasfiber shell but is made of “much cheaper” concrete you already got something that looks “investment worthy” to many people. So the minimum starting point is to make a “surprising shell” or a “surprising honeycomb structure” that arises investor interest. Step one could be to take hundred of your own bucks and build a shell that gives you enough credibility to get 5000 of investor bucks to the project – that would already be a first heartbeat of a working economic heart.
Ocean, i am glad that richi sowa is having a good life sitting there and collecting cents for beeing visited as a curiosity but i am quite sure that the model will not make any transition to a floating powerful sea city.
If you check the history the point where VENICE turned from a “fishing outpost in the swamps” to a powerful marine gateway was, when it started to engage international trade routes. This is what happens in Khalifa port. So i see their model closer to make a transition than richi’s model. We might see in the next five years that phase 2 of Khalifa is expanding a floating wharf.
floating wharf in construction
In fact the initial size and make of the startup does not matter Kalifa started with “piling up a bucket load of sand” and maintained the transition ever since, what matters is the “strong beating economic heart of the venture” its capability to make a transition its credibility as a business venture.
Complementing the port functions of Khalifa this floating ship repair facility would be a great aditional feature.
Once you have port functions and ship repair facilities working as “economic cluster” you certainly have someting that is “evolving towards a seastead”. But it would still be a baystead – as it can not deal with ocean waves.
Like in Venice the economic heart of this cluster is built around the “interaction with ships”.
Venice had 36,000 sailors operating 3,300 ships, dominating Mediterranean commerce…
http://concretesubmarine.activeboard.com/t56710025/venice-italy-how-to-do-instructions-for-seasteading-from-his/
The point here is what is a economic credible venture will not be decided by “fierce discussion on forums” it will be decided by actual money streams flowing (or not) to project proposals. If your idea is good and credible money will flow to it count on that. If you see no investors checking in – go back to square one improve your basic proposal.
It is by no means my idea to belittle any project – but it is my firm believe that if a project does not go forward it is because it is still struggling with basic flaws like credibility issues. So one of the basic project parameters is doing a serious questioning about “where are my current credibility issues” where can i improve, and do it.
Khalifa right now has the obvious issue that it is based on dumping sand into the ocean. It is obvious to a 5 year old kid that its capability of expansion is LIMITED by the waterdepth. So their task is to come up with industrial floating wharf structures – not so difficult – there are floating wharfs in service already. So their project is free of credibility issues and roadblocks – this is what a investor wants to hear.
…And this is the reason why investors dump 7 billion investment in “seasteading hub khalifa” (although the name is a different one…)