What are your views on this?

PhotonX is spot on, as usual.

Shotgun, what kind of drugs are you on? Absolutely nothing you have said made any sense whatsoever. You have no idea what you are talking about., and I can't even understand enough of your nonsensical babbling to write a rebuttal.

Why a tetrahedran, i really dont think it is any easier to build. In fact the easiest shape is a cylindrical, or prismic modular design, allowing small parts to be taken up at a time, realistically, you couldn't take up an inhabitable space station sized single object, including the cost of taking such a large thing up, currently no rockets capable of taking anything that big up to space, as would have to be done with your suggested shape.

Secondly, it doesnt save money to make things in space, the only thing it might be cheaper to do is final assembly, like flat pack, since it can be packed to take less space, but i dont think that is what you are implying.

To make it in space would use energy and more materials in space than you would by taking the complete object up their.

By doing this, energy would have to be used to take the raw materials up

First mate its 59 times easier to assemble a textrahedron or h/e. And the mass reserves of fuel it takes just to lauch could be cut in half cut by 5/7ths. You could use then utilize that extra fuel in other I.e reserves, I.e more distance in time (effective time usuage) the point of a space station is simply to be in orbit not to return to the surface. Yea it was a movie dog but legitimate measures. Thats what crafts are fir to travel to station/surface. The tet could also hoist mining operations and hold resource storages etc. You didnt think about it mate.

<I believe we should build a new space station a [tetrahedron])> What we need is a rotating station that would create artificial gravity so that returning to Earth wouldn't be so difficult on astronauts after extended missions. What advantage would there be to a tetrahedron, other than looking cool?

.

<we can [develop] our tech there> How, and why? While there are a few exotic materials that can be more easily made in microgravity, what is it about space that you think it would be a better general manufacturing platform than the surface of the planet? It's hard to do, and staggeringly expensive. There is always waste in manufacturing processes, so why would we want to spend $10,000 a pound to loft manufacturing waste into low Earth orbit?

.

<send out exploration crafts and probes more easily> How would that be easier? It's the same Δv to send a probe into a given orbit whether it's done from the surface or from an intermediate location. The physics of orbital mechanics doesn't magically change because it's already in orbit.

.

<it [would] be [1 million] times better than the waste of money were investing right now.> You clearly haven't put any thought into this. Oblivion was a movie, fictional entertainment that doesn't have to comply with the realities of space. Ditto for Gravity. You can't simply take what a Hollywood screenwriter says as actual reality. Oblivion is fiction, not a documentary.

.

.