💯 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.

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

😊😊

I totally agree, like this guy, no bullshit!

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 think you're wrong about using the tanks. I think the first Starship space station should be exclusively dedicated to figuring now on orbit demolition/training. Basically cutting the bottom half into usable chunks and also removing the raptors to be returned on resupply missions. The earlier the model number the Starship the faster it's going to be obsolete and retired anyway. SpaceX is all about moving fast and breaking things. Space construction is one of those fundamental "other things" the Kennedy talked about that didn't get done. Space will not be economical until orbital construction is economical. Start with just cutting and welding. Don't even attempt to make something out of it. Use it for welding and cutting training. The next one acts as a breaking yard for the first one. The next one you send actual construction equipment now that you have a decent supply of "raw" resources. The breaking yard, disassembles the bottom half of the construction ship. Etc. Something something space based shipyard.

this cylinder has too much problem . one of them which biggest one is velocity drop. there are too less air but when its spinning its contact too much of them . its getting slow donw and eventually fall the earth

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.

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?

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...

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.

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.

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.

❕👍

Or have the payload area detachable from the propulsion system which could go back to earth and grab a new top.

I think you hit on every idea which went through my mind as I watched the video

Might as well just have a pre-built station segment with all the trimings in the cargo bay - sticking modules together in space - well do-able -- building stuff in space --- yeah, thats decades away.