Why are space stations so underused as main settings? It's always starships and planets, and why stations do appear in many works, the only times where they're the whole point of the story are B5, DS9, and Downbelow Station.
>>54401015
Because a station is fragile. And it's made of a lot of parts that are hard to bullshit the positions of if you're trying to be serious about it. Any one of which if they fail basically just ends the setting.
>deep space 9
>>54401317
He mentioned it. And it's the best. But it also benefited from Star Trek BULLSHIT magi-tech allowing it to exist.
Probably because ships can go to new places (and thus plots) each episode, while stations are stuck in one place. Getting around this (DS9 with wormhole/Bajor, B5 with Space UN) requires work, and hoping that the viewers don't get sick of Space Gaza Strip etc by the end of the series.
>>54401311
Rubbish. That argument is MORE applicable to starships, and there are plenty of shows about those. A realistic space station isn't even particularly complicated - spin a big wheel or cylinder, give it air and heat, and bob's your uncle. They were designing big space stations back in the 50s, using mercury boilers for power because pholtovoltaics didn't exist, and the only reason we never built them was the transistor - unmanned satellites are much, much cheaper.
Go big or go home.
Building using orbital resources saves you the 10kps 'Earth tax'.
Mining ices and metal oxides from the moon or Deimos would make space industry far more affordable in general... so long as you're extremely patient.
For all its flaws, Eclipse Phase is a great example of dozens (hundreds?) of unique and interesting station settings.
>>54401015
>Downbelow Station
I like you.