Here's a self-contained interactive HTML calculator implementing your simplified models: the "ramp" heave idea (water rises H/2 in T/4, platform follows a fraction of it based on its natural heave period), a drag/thrust speed solve, fin-lift stabilizer authority converted to feet via the waterplane restoring force, and marine-aluminum weight/cost estimates. Save it as `seastead_tradeoff.html` and open in any browser — no internet needed. ```html Seastead Leg Tradeoff Explorer — 45' HC Shippable

Seastead Leg Tradeoff Explorer

Three prismatic NACA legs (50 % submerged, same displaced volume, 10′ chord) under a 44′ triangle. Simplified models: ramp-response heave · drag/thrust speed solve · fin-lift stabilizer authority · marine-aluminum weight & cost. Everything recalculates live.

Inputs

Advanced constants (weights, drag, damping, cost…)

Tradeoff Table — 3 Leg Profiles (same displaced volume, 10′ chord)

Leg Profile Fits 45′ HC? Waterplane Area
(Total Sq Ft)
Restoring Force
(Lbs per ft water height)
Natural Heave
Period Tn (s)
Est. Speed @ 10.0 kW (Knots) Heave w/o Stabilizer, 5.0′ wave (ft) Stab Force, 3 fins (Total Lbs) Stab Influence
(Ft Equivalent)
Heave WITH Stabilizer
(Final Motion, ft)
Heave
Reduction
Est. Weight of Each Leg
(Marine Aluminum)
Est. Cost: 1 Leg + 1 Stabilizer
(Marine Aluminum)

Profile sizing: NACA 0030 is your stated baseline (L 39′, draft 19.5′, chord 10′, width 3′). NACA 0040 / 0025 keep the 10′ chord and are re-lengthened to hold the same displaced volume (so buoyancy & payload are identical across rows). Container checks assume legs lie lengthwise; nested pair = 2×width + 0.1′ across the 7.7′ width.

Heave vs Wave Period (current inputs)

Solid = heave without stabilizer · dashed = final heave with stabilizer · gray dashed line = full following (water rise = H/2) · white marker = current wave period. Smaller-waterplane legs (0025) sit lower on this chart — less motion for the stabilizer to cancel — but they also go slower, which weakens fin force.

Model, Formulas & Assumptions

``` **What the defaults show (10 kW, 40% eff, 5-ft / 5-s wave, 10'×1' CL 1.0 fins ×3):** | Profile | L / draft | Waterplane | Restore (lb/ft) | Tn | Speed | Heave w/o | Stab force | Influence | Final | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 0040 | 29.3′ / 14.6′ | 82.2 ft² | 5,261 | 4.5 s | ~4.1 kt | ~1.34′ | ~1,430 lb | 0.27′ | ~1.07′ | | 0030 | 39′ / 19.5′ | 61.7 ft² | 3,946 | 5.2 s | ~3.9 kt | ~1.11′ | ~1,270 lb | 0.32′ | ~0.79′ | | 0025 | 46.8′ / 23.4′ | 51.4 ft² | 3,288 | 5.7 s | ~3.7 kt | ~0.98′ | ~1,170 lb | 0.36′ | ~0.63′ | Exactly the tradeoff you described: thinner/longer legs → smaller waterplane → softer spring → less motion for the stabilizer to cancel, but more wetted area → slower → weaker fin force. The table nets it out. **Two packing findings the tool flags automatically:** - **NACA 0025 fails the container**: 46.8′ leg vs 44.6′ length (even the 45.3′ corner diagonal doesn't help). - **NACA 0040's nested pair is 8.1′** vs the 7.7′ container width. Only the 0030 baseline passes both checks — a nice confirmation of your baseline choice. **To get more stabilizer authority**, try in the tool: more span, higher CL (flapped foil), more fins, more power (force scales with v², so 40 kW roughly triples fin force), or accept softer springs. Note the honest caveat visible in the numbers: at 10 kW the fins are a trim device, not a magic eraser — raising power is the biggest lever. All formulas and simplifications (ramp-response heave with damping factor δ, ITTC-friction drag solve, shell-area weight method, $/lb costing) are documented in the in-page "Model, Formulas & Assumptions" section, and every constant is adjustable in the Advanced panel.