💯 agreed

There is a ton of content on proposed stations around the solar system. It'd be cool to get "The Space Race"'s take on these. And go beyond just NASA stations, talk about China, ESA, and private ones too.

These are all good comments. You should do it Space Race guy.

😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😅😅😅😅😅😅😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊❤❤😊😊❤

😊😊

We need mass spaceststiinsin orbit + build the other ideas otherwise + attach the ISS for tourism museum of historical stations on bugger station in stable orbit and use starship to transport tourists weekly

Agreed 3 or 4 of them Moon, Mars and Earth (X2) with docking ports and they can all be serviced by something running to each of the bodies in a permanent loop (or figure 8 in the case of the moon) running a nuclear powered ion drive. It's just math and fuel once starship gets running daily missions. Economies of scale will prove to be the real win for spacex.

The idea of the space station as we know it originated with Arthur Clarke's 2001 Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick directed, Arthur Clarke wrote the book) The basic design was Clarke's. Yes it is big and ambitious and would be a multi billion dollar project. Until recently this has seemed out of reach but if Starship really delivers as promised it could be designed, built and completed in five years start to finish and the start could be around 2030 or sooner. such a place would have artificial gravity by way of angular momentum (centrifugal force). It would be wheel shape with most activities being in the multi level rim of the wheel. Then one would climb up to the hub via "spokes" where eventually the gravity will disappear completely in the hub which would be a perfect place for tourists to visit to experience micro gravity then go back down the spokes to the living quarters where they would check into their rooms and look out windows to see the Earth on one side and the rest of space on the other. The living quarters would have say about half of Earth's gravity at the bottom floor and perhaps a third of Earth's gravity at the top floor with perhaps 3-10 levels. such a station might start out with a hundred guest quarters and a lot of the features one might find on a cargo ship sans the cargo. Multiple docking stations would allow for constant stream of visitors. According to Elon Musk he expects that price of space travel to be reduced to a few tens of thousands of dollars for a trip to a space station or perhaps a few hundreds of thousands for a trip to the moon. Still out of reach for most people but millions of people world wide could afford such a visit and, someone would have to work there to perform tasks that can't be done by robots so I predict children currently attending elementary school could one day apply for a job at the space station like one might on a cruise ship or hotel and get to be paid astronauts so... One need not be a military pilot or engineer or billionaire to afford a trip into space. I know, lots of optimism. I grew up when we were still talking about one day walking on the moon for the first time, and when Star Trek was a completely new thing. So yes, lots of optimism but it is doable if Musk delivers on his promises. Because you know if we leave it up to governments we'd be talking about centuries instead of a decade or two.

@@nunyabiznez6381 At it's core a space station is simply a ship (perhaps a submarine is a better metaphor), nothing new or novel there.

@@nunyabiznez6381 unless we also make our owm companies and give our own ideas to society, like ex, solar roadways, fusion hybird vehickes, atom formers, etc

I totally agree, like this guy, no bullshit!

I would bet money that a bunch of decommissioned/expended starships will be just that 50 years from now. I suppose that there won't be many expended ones though as you can theoretically just fuel them up in space. At what point does a spacecraft in space become salvage I wonder?

I'm a bit leary of the reentry part. Imagine it being inhabited many years, with loads of loose items that needed to be stowed for reentry. It may be better to keep it maneuverable and forget return home trips. But as you said it could be great way to complete a task and bring it home. I've dreamed of a system intended for being stationed in orbit and available to service satellites from leo to lagrange sites.

Interesting, If you put the booster into orbit then you have the gas station ready in one shot.

The biggest problem with extending the size is fuel consumption for the extra mass, it's a sliding scale, the heavier the rocket, the more fuel you need, but the more fuel you add, the heavier the rocket is and so the more fuel you need...

I have to hand it to SpaceX. The Starship design is the optimal size for do many missions- Cargo to orbit, Tanker, SpaceX Station module, Orbital Refueling Station, Intercontinental Ballistic Transporter, Lunar Lander/ Cargo Ship, Lunar Base habitation module, and finally Interplanetary Transport Vehicle.

Go back to the 1950s, and the 1960s, and you will see hundreds of brilliant ideas, even using the LaGrange points as "parking spots" - while they built entire cities and towns, with clouds, a blue sky - everything. We somehow shrunk down into midgets and forgot Humanity was at its strongest when it was pulling together toward some great goals, to serve our future. When J.F.K. was murdered, we just fell apart - and maybe it's taken this long to get past it.

Is there not already docking capability at the nose cone? Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway...I posted my idea on this channel. I'll past it here as well incase you missed it. I think I should have a part 2 to describe what to do with the engine/fuel sections...which would be to join them or somehow combine them to form a larger fuel storage facility in space. I'm no engineer, so take this with a grain of salt. LOL. Create a Starship that separates at the point of where the fuel tanks are and the upper Storage/Passenger section meet. Do the separation at the current ISS and have the Canadarm move the Passenger section to a temporary docking area on the ISS that will just hold that section of Starship into place. The other half of the Starship which is the fuel tank and engine section then fires it's thrusters and moves away and orbits at a safe distance not too far from the ISS. Then another similar Starship is sent to the ISS and repeats the same process. Now there are 2 sections of the Habitable section of the Starships that can be either locked together at the points of where they were separated from their former fuel and engine sections, or mounted on a long tubular mounting manifold that would be sent up in sections previously with the Starships on their original journey to the ISS. These manifold sections could be made to be approximately 20 to 40 feet long (what ever is practical that would fit inside the storage section of the original Starship. They would be perhaps 8 ft in diameter and made very strong out of Stainless steel perhaps. Long metal spokes would have to be sent up as well at various lengths for supports. At the ISS, space walks would have to be conducted to assemble the Manifold sections. 1 section out of every number of lengths of Manifold that add up to 40 feet would have to have at least 1 to 4 docking ports installed on it. It would likely be much stronger if each docking port was staggered along the length of the Manifold (instead of 4 ports around the circumference of the manifold at the same point) I think as long as there was at least 40 feet of space between each docking port (going lengthwise) along the manifold, there would be plenty of room to dock the cargo end of the Starships, and I am assuming nose cone docking. This would give 10 feet of space between each docked Starship along the manifold. That 10 foot space would allow space walkers to assemble the spokes between docked starships almost like trusses for strength and stability. External systems, such as air scrubbers or human waste holding tanks could be mounted within the spokes too possibly. There would be plenty of room for people to walk along inside the manifold to get from one section of the new space station to the other. This concept however, has no planned in gravitational spin effect. Perhaps each section of manifold when originally manufactured could be slightly curved, so that after hundreds of them are assembled they form a giant circle. Then perhaps separated Starship Storage sections would be mounted to the space docks on the Manifold submarine style or parallel with the outer circumference of the Manifold, and then there might be better spin/artificial gravity capability.

Nope!!!! It doesn’t have the insulations protection from space debris or radiations!!!!! That’s why real space station exist to actually protect the occupants! This is just a steel tube launching stuffs in space lol

Bigelow went out of business in part because there's no longer a need for a light weight inflatable space station. Weight constraints are no longer a primary concern, neither is reliability as you can now launch 10-15 versions of the same equipment(on a much larger space station). The next major success in space will be a space station made by regular mechanical engineering firms., not aerospace, just the kind of mom and pops types, who make regular pressure vessels and boilers in apartment buildings, hospitals etc. Wouldn't be shocked if commercialization of space gets really really out of control, with every other company on the planet using orbital real estate as a means of promoting their business.

@@dixonhill1108 I believe that commercialization of space will continue growing exponentially. But as I am a researcher at NASA, I know for a fact that you're completely incorrect about the demand for innovative lightweight materials and structures for use in space, and are also not correct about reliability. Commercialization growing does not change this, new technologies do not change this, and neither does manufacturing off-Earth. Yes, there will be massive opportunity growth for Mom-and-Pop type businesses AND for use of heavy materials and structures in space. But no, lightweight and extremely reliable spacecraft will be very important until long after we are a multi-stellar species. So I'm still interested in my requested video! :D

"But no, lightweight and extremely reliable spacecraft will be very important until long after we are a multi-stellar species. "@@goodmew1763 What are you getting on with? Is your car extremely light weight? Weight constraints are based on the cost per kilogram. You're not gonna spend 2 billion on a space station, to save 100 million in launch costs if the heavier version is 10 percent the price. And that is where we're headed. You're not getting how manufacturing works. The costs are extreme because of weight constraints and a lack of backup systems. The amount NASA spends on basic items is extreme.

You're moving the goal posts I'm talking about specifically LEO space stations/bigelow. And you working at NASA doesn't impress me. It's an organization that is profoundly inefficient. @@goodmew1763 ". "and are also not correct about reliability " When it comes to space stations it's absolutely a thing. The specs on anything NASA does are extreme, and obviously were because of weight and limited scale. When you can have a 100 of one thing, versus 1 of 1 thing the costs are far lower. The ISS costs about 3 billion a ton, in near future launch costs it's about 1 million a ton to launch these systems. You have %300,000 differential. Obviously newer tech is cheaper, but it is only the tip of the iceberg. LEO stations are gonna get far far cheaper and very quickly.