Not a high probability, but would the top of a space elevator count?

With that title and 31% odds I thought I was about to fleece some wide-eyed futurists. For reference, I really don't think centrifugal force based arrangements qualify as "artificial gravity."

@AndrewHartman what kind of arrangements would qualify for you?

@jonny As another data point, I have always included centrifugal force generated in a spinning structure in microgravity in 'artificial gravity' as it is the only practical solution we have. I have seen many others refer to it as that too.

@WXTJ Me too :)

Vast has been making waves lately, they have a few planned stations that could resolve this market. First element is set to launch August 2025 on a falcon 9.

https://www.vastspace.com/roadmap?s=09

Does 'space station' specifically mean an artificial construction in a stable orbit that a spacecraft can trade cargo/passengers with? Does it require docking capabilities while also maintaining 'artificial gravity'? (I'm hoping for 'no' on that second point.)

@Duncn I can’t say I had a particularly nailed down definition of a space station in mind, but yours seems good to me. Broadly something in space capable of sustaining human life but not capable of taking off/landing on the earth of its own volition.

I guess for your second point I’ll say “no” - an environment that allows astronauts to walk approximately normal doesn’t have to be maintained during docking procedures.

@jonny "not capable of taking off/landing on the earth of its own volition" seems potentially restrictive, as it would be reasonable for a single-use rocket to be one of the first things that could qualify as a space station (i.e. primarily constructed on the ground, launched as a unit, and using large portions -- such as a spent stage -- as a counterweight. Likewise, a limited-use space station might well be designed to be deorbited largely intact. How about 'intended for multiple launches'?