That isn't a technology that is going to have any impact on the first visits to Mars.

But it would be wonderful if that dd became a solid option. It would open up the possibility of much longer trips and reduce the spacecraft volume required per person considerably.

Robots are nowhere near as capable as humans for the time being. So having humans on Mars doing science, such as ruling life in or out, is still very helpful.

But Mars may be the last big step where human beings are better than robots. Many experts estimate we will have full AI around 2050 or soon after and that field is moving forward very rapidly.

Yes, all of which suggests that maintaining health will be a serious consideration.

But both NASA and SpaceX know that and are planning to send humans to Mars without artificial gravity, so the evidence is very strong that the first people to go will no have that. And there has been no criticism of that plan from the many astronauts who know first hand what microgravity does to the body.

However, in the longer term you might be right. It may be that to colonize space (indefinite stays of years in orbit or traversing the solar system), artificial gravity may be required. That will require spaceships an order or more expensive as the radius for achieving artificial gravity through rotation without introducing disorienting effects is very large. Far larger than the starships that are planned today.

But it also may be that medical science catches up with the health effects. So the jury is definitely out on that.

Your opinion means nothing without facts, logical reasoning, and/or a strong claim to being a more credible expert than NASA's rocket scientists or Elon Musk and his SpaceX team.

Some facts and logic:

People have already lived a year on the ISS which has no artificial gravity. A trip to Mars is uniquely notable for greater risk of radiation and claustrophobia, but breaks less ground with regard to lack of gravity.

Unlike the ISS crew, Mars astronauts are unlikely to have a full schedule of experiments to run all day, so they will have more time to keep their bodies in shape. Adding additional exercise during journey time will help. There may be additional ways to add physical stressors that have therapeutic benefits.

Progress is also being made on medications to slow or pause some side effects of low gravity.

Of course all companies care about shareholders. But:

1) The incentive to cut costs in cost-plus contracts is less than that for competitive contracts. Shareholders don't have the same incentive to cut costs in the former.

2) The funding and organization of government projects has many political considerations that remove the link between efficiency and funding considerably. Everything from project goal, schedules and means can become a political football. This is not an environment where a laser focus on lowest risk per cost is possible.

3) The incentive to consolidate engineering for maximum efficiency is hampered by government funding which involves political considerations of what companies and sites different work should be done. NASA's operations are spread across states, try closing one for efficiency purposes and there will be complex political considerations that a private company doesn't have.

But your own observation that government projects attempting to create disruptive technology are often resource disasters makes my point for me.

"...all I see is a blind worshiper at the alter..."

Ok, I think the person with vision problems is you. You certainly have communication issues to work out. Good bye.

The incomparably vast resources cumulatively spent on the Space Shuttle did not acheive proportional safety. Lots of successful flights, but incredible amounts of money burned, and two disasters anyway.

Money helps. But there are many improvements in organization and engineering that are not about money. In fact, all of technology is a triumph of insight over money, as most technology does something that was already being done but with fewer resources.

Throwing money at a problem can actually undermine creative discipline. So if an organization has problems, the solution may involve more money or not.

Again, you are confusing a failed attempt at creating disruptive technology with disruptive technology itself. The disruptive technology, especially when already developed (by SpaceX) is always desirable.

Government managed projects to create disruptive technology can be financial and resource disasters, just like many other kinds of government projects.

Which is why private industry (SpaceX) is so helpful. Whatever money they got from government, the fact is Elon Musk and his co-investors would have lost huge amounts of their own money if they didn't succeed. That resulted in a focus on reducing cost and risk that governments and their cost-plus cronies are structurally unable to do.

Disruption means game changing technologies. If they are not game changing they are not disruption.

You are criticizing failed attempts at creating disruption not disruptive itself. This is where private industry works better, as real business people lose real fortunes when their attempts fail. So they are far more careful with cost/risk ratios of developing new tech than government or cost-plus providers are.

Disruptive technology, and products, such as lower cost access to space provided by SpaceX's successful choice to develop rocket engines with a vertical organization and onsite, is alway desirable.

The word "disruption" in this case has a specific meaning associated with innovation in economics and technology. It is generally considered a very good thing, even a holy grail. It doesn't refer to the need to cancel meetings or schedules because of chaos.

It means that new innovation comes along with strong enough benefits that the usual small incremental improvements by incumbents are not enough to keep up with major changes in capabilities and markets.

The military generally loves disruptive innovation. They are often the funders of basic research which attempts disruptive innovations. For instance, laser cannons, drones, on and on. They could care less if some schedules get "disrupted" in the pursuit of major improvements.

Opponents of disruption tend not be the real customers, but politicians and encumbent suppliers who have a lot to lose by things changing. For instance, senators who know a more efficient centralized space industry will threaten the pork barrel spread of NASA contractors across states. A politician doesn't want jobs lost in his/her state because of efficiencies.

Google "disruptive innovation"

SpaceX has already made big changes in the industry, such as centralizing design and production, that have the whole worldwide market for space transportation reacting. On what planet is that ideology or burning down a house? You seem to have a negative of view of recent progress, perhaps you can better explain what your reaction is related to.