7 ms·

> And right now, the soonest likely to launch is being led out of a sprawling former Fry’s Electronics retail store in a shopping center complex in Texas. Oh m

> And right now, the soonest likely to launch is being led out of a sprawling former Fry’s Electronics retail store in a shopping center complex in Texas. Oh man, I miss Fry's. Anyways, ISTM that Starship itself can be launched, left in orbit, and retrofitted into a space station module. Just purge the tanks, cut up the methane tank's dome, the common dome, and the downcomer, disconnect the engines (and return them to Earth, maybe) or maybe build smaller tanks to feed the engines for boosting the station, and finish the interior using materials shipped as the payload. IIRC one Starship would have as much volume as the entire ISS, but I can't check right now.

trothamel 3y ago
While the wet-tank concept has been explored since Skylab, that's a lot of work to do before your station becomes habitable - and where do you stay while doing the work? Launching inflatable stations inside the cargo area of Starship seems to be a much better approach, as all the fitting-out can be done on Earth, so the station is immediately inhabitable.
- knowaveragejoe 3y ago
  You answered your own question in a way - use the inflatable habs while finishing the Starship itself. Then you've got both.
  - foobarian 3y ago
    It's not like you can't have several Starships parked next to each other either. There are at least 3 lined up at Starbase in various stages of production.
- cryptonector 3y ago
  The payload bay could have enough finished quarters and life support to support the astronauts who would do the expansion of the station into the fuel tanks. But even if that seems a bit silly you could lash two Starships together and only use their payload bays and still have way more interior space than the ISS does now and do it all for much cheaper because Starships are so cheap.
  - delichon 3y ago
    With a pair of Starships it would be tempting to put them on either end of a tether and spin them for artificial gravity. The benefits for construction and comfort may outweigh the benefits of proximity. And it may be practical to convert from one configuration to the other.
perihelions 3y ago
One (future) Starship's payload bay alone has more volume than the ISS—that's not counting the fuel tank volume that shares a common bulkhead. The payload bay takes up just ~1/3rd of the spacecraft length. - "The Starship spacecraft is 50.3 m (165 ft) tall and 9 m (30 ft) in diameter. It uses 6 Raptor engines, three of which are optimized for use in vacuum.[6][22] The engines produce 14,700 kN (3,300,000 lbf) of thrust.[17] The vehicle's payload bay is planned to measure 17 m (56 ft) tall and 8 m (26 ft) in diameter with an internal volume of 1,000 m3 (35,000 cu ft); slightly larger than the ISS's pressurized volume.[23]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship#Starship_spacecraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship#Starship_space...
- WWLink 3y ago
  I remember a common talking point for space shuttle haters (aka people who use the word "boondoggle" way too damn much) was that it's a truck and we don't need a space truck. If it was a truck what is starship?
  - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    A much much much cheaper truck.
  - perihelions 3y ago
    It's a very good point! From one perspective, you can view Starship as a challenge that SpaceX can implement the STS (Shuttle) concept much better than the original STS itself. (And doing so, become cheap enough to create a high-volume orbital launch market). It's correct to be skeptical, even with SpaceX' track record. (Was it pg or whoever on HN who kept railing on that point about YC startups, that the implementation is everything—high-level ideas and concepts come cheap). If Starship's proven a lot of things, there's still major show-stopping uncertainties remaining, like if they can execute well on the reentry heat-shield tiles. That was overwhelmingly difficult for STS. I'm not knowledgeable enough to guess if SpaceX is on a promising track with those or not—I'm looking forward to finding out what happens! (Here's an open-ended question: if the modern SpaceX were asked to build a reusable spacecraft with (broadly) the same design choices as STS, would the outcome be closer to the dismal failure of the original, or to the success of Falcon 9? That is to say: how much of SpaceX' success do they owe to smart high-level design choices, vs. effective low-level execution?)
kelnos 3y ago
I think you're missing a lot there, like electricity, plumbing, and heat dissipation, just to name a few things.
- cryptonector 3y ago
  A lot of that would be sent up in the payload bay, and the rest in another trip. The ISS wasn't built in a day, but this could be built much faster.

trothamel 3y ago

While the wet-tank concept has been explored since Skylab, that's a lot of work to do before your station becomes habitable - and where do you stay while doing the work? Launching inflatable stations inside the cargo area of Starship seems to be a much better approach, as all the fitting-out can be done on Earth, so the station is immediately inhabitable.

knowaveragejoe 3y ago
You answered your own question in a way - use the inflatable habs while finishing the Starship itself. Then you've got both.
- foobarian 3y ago
  It's not like you can't have several Starships parked next to each other either. There are at least 3 lined up at Starbase in various stages of production.
cryptonector 3y ago
The payload bay could have enough finished quarters and life support to support the astronauts who would do the expansion of the station into the fuel tanks. But even if that seems a bit silly you could lash two Starships together and only use their payload bays and still have way more interior space than the ISS does now and do it all for much cheaper because Starships are so cheap.
- delichon 3y ago
  With a pair of Starships it would be tempting to put them on either end of a tether and spin them for artificial gravity. The benefits for construction and comfort may outweigh the benefits of proximity. And it may be practical to convert from one configuration to the other.

perihelions 3y ago

One (future) Starship's payload bay alone has more volume than the ISS—that's not counting the fuel tank volume that shares a common bulkhead. The payload bay takes up just ~1/3rd of the spacecraft length. - "The Starship spacecraft is 50.3 m (165 ft) tall and 9 m (30 ft) in diameter. It uses 6 Raptor engines, three of which are optimized for use in vacuum.[6][22] The engines produce 14,700 kN (3,300,000 lbf) of thrust.[17] The vehicle's payload bay is planned to measure 17 m (56 ft) tall and 8 m (26 ft) in diameter with an internal volume of 1,000 m3 (35,000 cu ft); slightly larger than the ISS's pressurized volume.[23]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship#Starship_spacecraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship#Starship_space...

WWLink 3y ago
I remember a common talking point for space shuttle haters (aka people who use the word "boondoggle" way too damn much) was that it's a truck and we don't need a space truck. If it was a truck what is starship?
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  A much much much cheaper truck.
- perihelions 3y ago
  It's a very good point! From one perspective, you can view Starship as a challenge that SpaceX can implement the STS (Shuttle) concept much better than the original STS itself. (And doing so, become cheap enough to create a high-volume orbital launch market). It's correct to be skeptical, even with SpaceX' track record. (Was it pg or whoever on HN who kept railing on that point about YC startups, that the implementation is everything—high-level ideas and concepts come cheap). If Starship's proven a lot of things, there's still major show-stopping uncertainties remaining, like if they can execute well on the reentry heat-shield tiles. That was overwhelmingly difficult for STS. I'm not knowledgeable enough to guess if SpaceX is on a promising track with those or not—I'm looking forward to finding out what happens! (Here's an open-ended question: if the modern SpaceX were asked to build a reusable spacecraft with (broadly) the same design choices as STS, would the outcome be closer to the dismal failure of the original, or to the success of Falcon 9? That is to say: how much of SpaceX' success do they owe to smart high-level design choices, vs. effective low-level execution?)

kelnos 3y ago

I think you're missing a lot there, like electricity, plumbing, and heat dissipation, just to name a few things.

cryptonector 3y ago
A lot of that would be sent up in the payload bay, and the rest in another trip. The ISS wasn't built in a day, but this could be built much faster.