>>10930743Yeah, im aware of that and had considered being able to swap payload segments entirely, but my issue from that is that it adds a structural weakness to the entire thing due to the attachment point between payload and propulsion hulls.
My idea was that things like pressurized cargo, fuel tankage, and passenger space could all be designed as a common module layout, then inserted into the bay as needed (an empty bay would simply do unpressurized cargo. Take what you need, slot it in. But, heres where my concept has an additional strength over splitting the ship:
If it is so desired, the payload module can be left up in space, and the now empty starship hull can return for the next mission.
Imagine:
First mission sends up the unpressurized stuff like power and structural elements. The next mission launched can launch with, say, an expandable module or two just for basic hab space and life support. The third through sixth missions could add 4 crew modules to the station. Next mission or two could add the pressurized cargo modules. They would not have life support of their own, but could add things like additional power and/or heat rejection capacity to the station on their ventral (the part inside Starship) hulls that unfurl after it's been docked and left behind.
After that, another structural flight in a UP-Cargo starship for hardpoint expansion. Finally, a series of flights to add fuel tankage capacity for future missions, say, out to the moon or out to mars.
Boom, 12 flights and you have a space station that makes the ISS it's bitch. And you could do it with the same 3-4 starship hulls as they would be able to return after dropping off their module/payload.
