The $1000 Seastead Design Contest
-
I'm sorry but at this moment I'm too lazy to read the competition's submission requirements. I'm assuming somebody has and might know the answer to my question. Do you actually have to submit the model -- or just presentation images like most competitions?
If it's just images I don't see the big deal. Others are quite unlikely to use your images anyways. It is likely they'd just be used to promote the Seasteading Institute's goals which is reasonable and expected.
The competition sounds kind-a fun.
Regards, Ross
-
Also the model - in eithr skp or 3ds format.
-
Thanks Csaba
Maybe Lasse can explain why they think they need the model. Generally I'd say well composed images / panels communicate better than the actual model. Submitting just images keeps the artist in control of how the model is presented. I assume this is a DESIGN competition about ideas and not a 'modelling' competition. There is a difference in that if I were just submitting images I would focus my modelling on what I wanted to communicate -- I would not model things I did not intend to show. The model can be staged for presentation. When it is the model itself being reviewed it suggests the technical aspects & completeness of the model come into play -- and it inherently becomes less about ideas.
-
Hi,
@unknownuser said:
While you may not outright own the submitted models you and anyone else who wants to can appropriate the work for their own gain as long as they 'credit' the original creator.
True. But it's worth noting that The Seasteading Institute is a nonprofit organisation so it's not like we are going to make money off your creation. And since the contest is about modeling a pretty unusual structure it is unlikely that anyone else than The Seasteading Institute wants to use it.
@unknownuser said:
Maybe Lasse can explain why they think they need the model.
We require the model to be submitted because we expect we want to use it later. Might be for virtual tours, as part of a 3D city consisting of multiple platforms or real-life models. So much more can be done with the actual model than with just a set of images.
The technical quality of the model is not important for the competition. The two main criteria are aesthetics and personality. Aesthetics in the sense of which model that is the most visually appealing and enticing. Personality as in showing the best sense of human influence or presence (people walking, smoke coming out of a chimney, a colorful sign in front of a business, etc.) But it must of course be a complete model and not only work from one angle.
- Lasse
-
Okay Lasse, don't take us wrong also no offence on anyone's side - some things are just not clear on the site you linked to.
-
I think "intellectual property rights" will always be touchy. As long as it is made abundantly clear that you are in essence giving up this right, or at least the right of someone else to manipulate your creation, and you consent ( in this case by entering) Then so be it.
However what does happen is a lot of people who feel strongly about this probably won't participate. I don't know if there is another work around to this issue though. -
I suppose that my issue with any 'contest/competition' of this type is that the participants are relinquishing all 'rights' to their creation. If you submit a painting, photograph, song composition, short story etc., to a competition, the rules are usually that the 'creation' remains the property of the creator and dependant on the intent of the competition, the winning entries may be subject to certain usage issues. What I don't understand is why in this case the entrants are expected to give up their design rights. Why not just state that the submitted design rights, with the exception of the winners remain the property of the designer.
I'm not questioning the integrity of the Seasteading Institute, it just seems like a lot to give up for the designer.
-
Sounds interesting, Lasse (Norsk or Dansk?). I think I might have a go at it. I'm not clear on one thing though- your website explains that any added structures must be built on top of the trusses, but it appears the guywires would penetrate the added structure causing major planning problems. The layout of the guywires (horizontally radial) in the downloaded skp model appear to differ from those of the image on your website (lateral). The guywires in the skp model make it pretty much impossible to build anything on top of the trusses and lateral guywires (as in the image) make it extremely difficult to design anything other than a series of unconnected towers with fairly small footprints. Can you clarify please?
-
excerts from an earlier dialogue with the contest host in the form of a chat with jackson.
.......
Answer to Jackson's question:An example of a change like this in the sample design is how the suspension cables connect to convex, vertical beams which in turn attach to the four support pillars, rather than having the suspension cables attach directly to the four support pillars themselves."
Jackson's probable response:
Well yes, I see thankyou, although those changes are structural not cosmetic...who did the engineerig on the new beams?...I quess you are saying there is a lot of flexability.
James real answer:
You're right in that "cosmetic" is probably not the best word choice in the rules, as it is a structural change, albeit a relatively minor one. We're OK allowing a little structural flexibility, as it's realistic to expect a little customization for the first few clients who invest in building one of these anyway. How much customization is obviously a little harder to define, which is why we included the example image and have the e-mail address for questions.
The modified beams were designed by an architect consulting with the marine engineering firm who designed the platform.Perhaps a phrase like "significant structural changes" would be better. We'd welcome your feedback. I'm cc'ing Lasse, our contest administrator, on this e-mail.
Thanks,
James Hogan, Director of Operations
The Seasteading Institute
http://www.seasteading.org -
Looks like Seastead will get alot for $1000. Licensed under CCL, so they pay for the winner and the runners up but get to see hundreds of different concepts and models that they can actually use in whole or in part so long as they credit the creator.
edit: they do seem like good guys, interestingly one of the founders used to work for Google.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/02/tech/cnettechnews/main4769336.shtml -
-
Getting back to the conceptual/apolitical side of the contest, this reminds me a little of a project I did with some friends at uni when I was going though a very "conceptual" phase.
We proposed an art gallery, communal studios, performance spaces which would be built 4 storeys up, spanning between several buildings effectively roofing a large loading bay, but which could only be accessed via multiple private apartments on the 4th floor to which it was connected. High Bullsh*t, and purely theoretical I know, but the idea was to blur private space, public space and communal space and also to explore the legal boundaries of the relative liberty we are afforded in our own homes (smoking, nudity, building regulations, etc) compared to that allowed in public spaces and buildings.... and no, we did not get naked for the presentation. -
Hi Jackson,
I don't have the expertise to answer your questions, but I'll make sure they are forwarded to the engineering company which designed the platform for us. When I have their reply, I'll post it here in the thread.
- Lasse (which is dansk
- Lasse (which is dansk
-
Thanks Hebrides.
Unfortunately the more I look at this skp model the more questions I have.
Why aren't the supporting legs/columns at the corners? Not only would that create a much more stable structure, but the trusses would then form a square frame around the perimeter making it far easier to design an efficient layout for any added structures. After all, oil production platforms follow this format and they know more than anybody about living off-shore.
I've never seen guywires used at this scale in above-surface marine structures (other than ships' masts of course). Guywires tend to be used to brace very slender structures which have high compressive strength, but little lateral rigidity. The pillars and trusses in the skp model however are extremely deep/broad in comparison to their length/height so it would seem more logical to provide the bracing in the form of rigid connections at their intersections. I'm no marine engineer, but it doesn't seem at all logical that the trusses aren't structurally connected to the columns other than (presumably) within the flat "raft" base. Why not design it as a single connected structure? If marine engineers did design it they appear to have gone against generally accepted practice in a number of rather inexplicable ways.
-
Hi Jackson,
@jackson said:
The guywires in the skp model make it pretty much impossible to build anything on top of the trusses and lateral guywires (as in the image) make it extremely difficult to design anything other than a series of unconnected towers with fairly small footprints. Can you clarify please?
Can you provide a screenshot of the horizontal radial wires? It sounds like an error but I don't see them anywhere.
For an example of how a design can look without interfering too much with the lateral wires, take a look at the sample design: Images and SketchUp file (which is still being polished).@jackson said:
Why aren't the supporting legs/columns at the corners? Not only would that create a much more stable structure, but the trusses would then form a square frame around the perimeter making it far easier to design an efficient layout for any added structures. After all, oil production platforms follow this format and they know more than anybody about living off-shore.
I've never seen guywires used at this scale in above-surface marine structures (other than ships' masts of course). Guywires tend to be used to brace very slender structures which have high compressive strength, but little lateral rigidity. The pillars and trusses in the skp model however are extremely deep/broad in comparison to their length/height so it would seem more logical to provide the bracing in the form of rigid connections at their intersections. I'm no marine engineer, but it doesn't seem at all logical that the trusses aren't structurally connected to the columns other than (presumably) within the flat "raft" base. Why not design it as a single connected structure? If marine engineers did design it they appear to have gone against generally accepted practice in a number of rather inexplicable ways.
I send your question to our staff and the marine engineering company, which made the design. Please see the following initial answer to your question from our staff:
*"Putting the legs at the corners results in a larger span, that is, more cantilevering, and thus requires a bigger truss which wastes materials. Right now, the largest span is 200', which means the furthest cantilevering is 100'. If spars were at the corners there would be a 400' span and thus 200' cantilevering.As for wires vs. trusses, materials are generally more efficient in tension than compression. Hanging things saves on materials - see the work of Buckminster Fuller."*
And more details from the engineering company:*"Semi-submersible columns are in general connected at the top (by beams under the deck, and at the bottom, using large pontoons. We're not, so increasing the separation makes it difficult for the structure to wistand the "hogging" and "sagging" modes due to wave loading. Moving structure outside the column also helps in distributing the load directly above the column center , and minimizing the offset moment, again because we only have one connection point.
The cables are there to reduce weight and redistribute the weight again above the buoyancy.
Why not design as a single structure? Mostly because it would be too large for most shipyards in the world, and we want the flexibility to use smaller fab yards, and improve economics, in the assembly and integration scenario.
Lastly, this is not an oil and gas platform. The design basis requirements are different, and there is a coolness factor that needs to be included. We're trying to combine an more efficient structure, a larger footprint, an optimized payload, good motions, without increasing cost."*
I hope this answers your questions satisfactory.
-
Thanks for your reply Lasse.
See images of radial cables in the skp model below.
The design you linked to shows the cables attached not to the columns, but to bowed vertical beams which are attached to the columns. Following your engineers' logic that cables are an inherently efficient means of bracing a structure (although I'm not aware of any suspended structure on this scale which is suited to a moving foundation, i.e. ship or oil platform), it would seem that the material savings allowed by the use of cables are then spent on the extra bowed vertical beams. If I had the choice I would take the material costs from the extra vertical beams and the cables and spend it on rigid connections between the trusses and columns, thereby freeing up almost all the space above the trusses for development.
Unfortunately it's extremely difficult to even begin designing (even a sketch design) when the underlying structure is according to your engineers both a) very well thought through and therefore a coherent structure in which every element is dependant on another, but also b) large elements of the structure can apparently be moved around to suit planning. I understand (in spite of the comprehensive engineer's report) that the whole idea is fairly conceptual, but a moving target is very hard to hit.@unknownuser said:
"Putting the legs at the corners results in a larger span, that is, more cantilevering, and thus requires a bigger truss which wastes materials. Right now, the largest span is 200', which means the furthest cantilevering is 100'. If spars were at the corners there would be a 400' span and thus 200' cantilevering.
I follow the logic of reducing the span of the trusses, but surely this is at the expense of stability? As I said, I'm no marine engineer, but the same principle applies at sea as on land: the farther apart the legs/supports are the lower the centre of gravity and the more stable the structure. Besides, in the current structure the trusses aren't cantilevered- they're suspended from the columns via the cables. In section the platform is effectively a suspension bridge, but AFAIK suspended structures rely on an extremely stable foundation whereas cantilevered structures are better suited to less stable conditions.
Sorry for banging on about this, I'm just intrigued about the many ways in which this structure strays from standard engineering practice.
-
I want to modify the model (move the cables) to accomodate my structure but need a few hints to hobble up something that is feasible.
I would like to know what percentage of the total weight of the truss system is supported by the wires. I would guess that it is less than half. This cable arrangement would have affected the stability testing to a great degree as it sends a fair portion of the weight to the upper portion of the columns.
Seems to me the centre of gravity is very high. Is there a balust and if so is it used to fine tune the stability? -
Hi,
Jackson:
@unknownuser said:
The layout of the guywires (horizontally radial) in the downloaded skp model appear to differ from those of the image on your website (lateral).
@unknownuser said:
See images of radial cables in the skp model below.
I don't see how they differ from the images on our website. Except if you mean the image of the sample design which differs only because the wires are attached to the vertical beams (which in turn connect to the spars) instead of connecting directly to the spars. This is an acceptable minor alteration of the design and, while practical in some cases, doesn't change any properties of the platform.
Regarding your further engineering inquiry, unfortunately I cannot pass on all questions to our engineering team. I ask you to carry on the discussion in our forums where quite a few users have engineering knowledge.
hebrides:
@unknownuser said:
I want to modify the model (move the cables) to accomodate my structure but need a few hints to hobble up something that is feasible.
I would like to know what percentage of the total weight of the truss system is supported by the wires.In general, we don't allow modifications of the base platform unless they are minor cosmetic alterations. How much is minor? Can't tell you exactly unless you tell me exactly what you want to change, but anything that requires calculations like you want to do is definitely too much.
- Lasse
Advertisement