Dream project: Converting a support vessel <300 GT into a long-range liveaboard expedition yacht

Hi @CocoonCruisers ,

I fully get what you mean – and I appreciate your point. But here’s the thing: compromise is not absolute – it’s relative to personal priorities.

What you described might be perfect for you or for many others – and I can absolutely see its appeal. But for my use case, I would actually be giving up on a number of key requirements if I went that way. Things like:

• Fully enclosed operations in cold or rough conditions
• Protected working decks
• Large isolated storage volumes with specific climate zones
• Long-term service access without crawling under bunks
• And yes, aesthetics – I don’t need neoclassical styling, but I like it when it also brings functionality (high bow, solid bulwarks, simple lines for repainting, etc.)

So to me, giving those up would be a compromise.
Just like to someone else, my design might seem “overbuilt” or “nostalgic”.

I think that’s the beauty of it – we all come from different places, have different needs, and dream of different kinds of freedom. That’s why I never try to convince others that “my way is better” – just that it fits my goals best.

Thanks again for the great input – I do enjoy your perspective even if I go in another direction.

Cheers,
Josef

 

IMHO none of that should be difficult in a 20m+ cat with hulls a good 2m wide; it would just imply 2 staircases (and overhead loading hatches ?) per hull. Think stores or walk-in fridges/freezers front and back for the forward ones, and engines at the back + workshop or spares warehouse towards the front for the rear ones. The rarely accessed tanks could certainly find their place in between if you don't want to bury them below flooring.

I totally get the last point though Take care !

 

@CocoonCruisers ,
I believe this has been explained more than once — including why certain options were intentionally ruled out. It’s not about being unaware of alternatives. Quite the opposite: I know them well, and I’ve deliberately chosen a different route — one that fits my needs.

I totally respect that you'd go a different way. But continuing to push suggestions after a clear rationale has been given just ends up wasting time for both sides.

 

Josef, i'm not aware of parts that you know but didn't say here.
I'm a systems integration guy just like you and i didn't see the clear rationale. I still don't see it from the info i have.
Now i don't think it's important to sort out if the reason for that is a lack of clarity on your side, or a lack of understanding of mine;
to me the need to question specs in order to advance in any way on subjects of that complexity seems obvious and constant. I think it's also prerequisite for meaningful discussions with people who, like many here or most longer term livaboards, have thought about that same stuff for a decade and more. I don't apreciate basically beeing asked to shut up - if, like someone infered before, there is AI at work there, you might want to check it a little more ?
But it's been an interresting discussion nevertheless ! Good luck with the project.

 

Hi @CocoonCruisers ,

Thanks for your message — let me respond clearly.

First of all, it was never my intention to make anyone feel "shut up". If that’s how it came across, then I apologize — but please understand that after repeating the same clarifications multiple times, including full rationale behind key decisions (like single-deck living vs. below-deck systems, monohull vs. cat, long-range autonomy, cold-weather operations, etc.), there comes a point where revisiting already-settled topics starts to burn energy for no gain.

I get that your background makes you inclined to challenge specs — and that’s perfectly valid in the design process if you’re part of it. But in this thread, I’m not crowdsourcing design choices. I’m discussing a clearly-defined project and sometimes testing reactions — not reopening fundamentals.

Also, we all have different needs. You may not see compromises in your proposal, but I do — for my use case. That doesn’t mean your ideas are bad. They’re just not aligned with what I’ve spent years refining for myself.
And finally — no, this thread is not AI-generated. But even if I do use AI to explore options (as any modern designer might), I still do the thinking, deciding, and filtering. So let’s drop the AI insinuation — it’s not helpful.

Thanks again for the discussion.

Best,
Josef

 

I admire your continual stance - however, in over 35 years of design, i've never been part of a project where there are no compromises.
The very definition of a successful design, is a series of compromises that gets to the end result.

 

Hi @Ad Hoc ,

Thanks for your message – and I appreciate your long-standing experience in the field.
Just one clarification: I never claimed there would be no compromises at all. In fact, I explicitly wrote in my earlier post to @TANSL:
“I’m well aware that compromises will follow once naval architecture and class constraints are factored in.”

So yes — compromises are part of the process, and I’ve acknowledged that openly. What I said — and perhaps what’s being taken out of context — is that I’m not willing to compromise on the key functional goals that define the mission of this vessel.

For example, reducing the vessel from ~33m to <24m would compromise essential aspects like storage, service access, autonomy, and operational safety — things that, from my point of view, are not “nice to have,” but mission-critical. That’s what I mean when I say: on some things, you don’t compromise.

I’ve spent two full years refining these needs. The design direction I’m pursuing is not the result of a whim or aesthetics, but a direct response to those operational requirements.

Thanks again for engaging — I do value experienced voices, even when we see things differently.

Best,
Josef

 

Hi again Josef,

I like the clarity of your goals, and that you already put substantial thought into it, even though a couple years work of a single guy (a skilled one even, at least on that absolutely major topic that is integration) are just a fraction of the design/engineering time budget required for a small superyacht like you envision. The relative coherence of your vision is, i think, why some very thoughtful folks here (most much more competent than myself) are happy to have a look at it and provide unpaid quality feedback.

This beeing a fairly technical forum, i think i'm not the only one here who spotted that implying you couldn't achieve all of that -same or better- in other form factors than the traditional-styled superyachts that you posted is technically wrong. Same as for the impossibility to achieve that SOR under 24m. For example what i was talking about yesterday is not about stiffling your dreams, but about setting up your same 200-300 GT with all the stores and tech spaces, in a lighter, wider, shorter and more stable catamaran platform that could also allow much easier loading of the toys. There are a couple reasons many research vessels are done like that nowadays, and part of the beauty of digging through all the complexity of such a project is that you can often solve the challenges in many different ways. There are also very valid reasons for the voices warning about such low manning on a vessel that size that you seem to take quite lightly: fatigue is a prime factor in the complex unfolding of many problems at sea, negligence is a huge topic in the legal aftermath of every marine accident (and we're talking about a vessel with which you run over a fisherboat and kill 6 people without even noticing). Entire flag countries are banned from many ports, and even long-time livaboards on sound and up-to-date 50' sailboats or passagemakers are having a really hard time to get insured for passages with less than 3 people aboard. Aren't professionals in their place pointing things like that out, and repeating them when they feel overheard, even in an informal setting ?

Now if you don't like the looks/representation power/marine & personal legacy resonnance, or just anything else about propsitions here, or if at some point you get tired of starting over so often (which many here are incredibly used to, way past levels required in other fields), then so what, it's not like anyone would have a problem with that. I don't even see any really critical doubts about the feasibility of your approach in the discussion so far.

Could be that with the style and manning constraints you set the topic might eventually get too boring for a bright procrastination and sharing party like this forum at some point, which after all is less about you and your project than about enjoying each others company. That doesn't make your project less valid. Also there are plenty of superyacht consultancies out there that live well on pampering egos, confirming clients bias and making go technically from there. I understand you can handle the expense, but i'd be a little careful about the impact on quality of such a priorization - your SOR is pretty exigent after all. I think it's really cool you are already operating on both sides, forums and a NA's on an actual mission, since you can benefit from both. There might be balance found somewhere in between. My experience would be that the more you dig and question, the less you block, the better, because it can remain a lifelong learning process and a motivation loop for all. (Appreciate your apologies btw, that is rare on the internet, where many things sound harsher than they are meant) Take care !

 

Hi @CocoonCruisers s,

Thanks again for the thoughtful reply and the respectful tone – much appreciated.

You're absolutely right that there are multiple technical ways to solve a challenge like this, and that some of them may offer greater efficiency, performance, or even convenience. I don’t deny that catamarans or more modern hulls could potentially offer advantages in some respects.
However, at the end of the day, the platform I've chosen isn’t based solely on technical optimization. It's shaped by my values, my use case, and my long-term experience in building maintenance, where short-term compromises almost always led to long-term regrets.
Yes, style matters to me—not because I want “retro looks” or people gasping in a marina—but because I want a timeless, rugged, honest form that reflects the function. Something that feels like home at sea, not a showroom on water.

Regarding manning and fatigue: I’m not planning to race across oceans. I’ve structured my routes so that I can take my time, choose safer windows, or split longer voyages into manageable segments. This approach allows me to rest, avoid unnecessary risk, and actually enjoy destinations that many others would simply bypass. I’m no young daredevil who acts first and thinks later—I know my limits, and I respect them.

Regarding insurance and operations with low crew: yes, I fully acknowledge the challenges. That’s why I'm building with fail-safes, redundancy, and true single-point access design in mind. Not for “fun” but for real-life workability. If that means some limitations from insurers or authorities, so be it. I’m not trying to bend reality—just design around it with eyes wide open.

About your concern on starting over: that's actually part of the process I enjoy. The freedom to iterate is not a frustration for me—it’s a luxury. But it doesn’t mean I’m undecided or lost. It just means I’m thorough.

So again—thank you for your message. Even if I choose a different route than you’d prefer, it’s helpful to have your view as a reference point, and I truly value the time and thought you put into sharing it.

Take care.
Josef