> And what, pray tell, is the "traditional approach" in designing space stations compared to magical "approaches that yield results faster"? Well, the first th

> And what, pray tell, is the "traditional approach" in designing space stations compared to magical "approaches that yield results faster"? Well, the first thing that comes to mind is the huge amount of work done to keep things light, thin, self-contained and fit within existing payload bay sizes and can be constructed with minimum number of launches. If launch costs drop through the floor there is less need for that. You could build heavier, more robust stations because mass to orbit prices are so low. You could build it without having to minimise the number of launches. You could have much bigger and heavier sections sent up in pieces and built "on-site" so to speak. Much easier to consider when the price to move those heavy components up to space orders of magnitude cheaper and launches take place daily / weekly. (Yes I know I am glossing over a lot of things here).