Sateloons. As shown on The Simpsons. Or from such Joe Biden films as, Chinese Spy Barroon.

Your message would be better received if you showed some humility.

Weve talked about this before and ill say it again.

It would take a massive balloon to hold something as heavy as the ISS up. And they certainly wouldnt be using helium to do it since we have no way to generate helium and earth has a finite supply of it.

Hydrogen is lighter than helium but extremely flammable.

https://deepfuture.tech/helium-airships-short/

This is a interesting article about the concepts of using balloons for airships and why its not really possible.

The world has unlimited hydrogen on earth, more or less. We have a lot. We can make more. Hydrogen’s awesome. What the world does not have on earth is very much helium. We have very little helium. We have very little helium left. We’ve been able to find a few new helium mines in the last decade, but there’s just not much of it.

https://www.airships.net/hindenburg/flight-operations-procedures/

Without a dependable source of additional ballast, gas was valved freely to maintain equilibrium, and the ship routinely valved up to 1.5 million cubic feet of hydrogen during a North Atlantic crossing.

Valving, Replenishment, and Purity of Hydrogen

Hindenburg’s liberal valving of hydrogen to maintain level trim required the addition of about 20% fresh hydrogen every seven to ten days, which increased operational expenses, but had the benefit of maintaining the ship’s lifting gas at a high level of purity.

https://endless-sphere.com/sphere/threads/electrolysis-production-of-h2-for-solar-electric-airship.56217/

It is also true that there is always some very low but constant gas seepage (not enough to provide sufficient % fuel mix to be flammable) through the membrane walls of the gas cell(s) that means that buoyancy is constantly lost slowly over time and gas replenishment is necessary, this is especially true with pressurized gas envelopes on air-ships with non-rigid frames (blimps).

So you could use metal to contain the gas and it wouldnt leak, but then it would be to heavy to lift in the first place. There proally are some meta materials that could do the same thing but likely havent even been invented yet.

Logistically, it doesnt make much sense.

A super heavy-lift launch vehicle is a rocket that can lift to low Earth orbit a "super heavy payload", which is defined as more than 50 metric tons (110,000 lb)[1][2] by the United States and as more than 100 metric tons (220,000 lb) by Russia.[3] It is the most capable launch vehicle classification by mass to orbit, exceeding that of the heavy-lift launch vehicle classification.

A balloon can only carry a fraction of that. I also dont think there is enough atmosphere at the edge to lift anything higher than the lower stratosphere.

Toy balloons burst at around 10km, while professional meteorological balloons reach heights of 30km

The International Space Station maintains an orbit approximately 250 miles (400 kilometers) above sea level

Although over 90 percent of all satellites are situated in LEO (below 2,000 kilometers) and GEO (near 36,000 kilometers), the space between the two most popular orbital regimes can be an ideal environment for a smaller subset of satellite systems.

There would have to be millions of engineers, operators, builders, etc in on it.