That what I've read, as well. The are studies underway to get more information about the physiological effects of low G, but until we have something like the proposed moon base we are using the ISS as a proxy, and it's effectively 0 G. We do know 0G isn't good for us, and the longer we stay the more pronounced the problems.

Until we have more information and a way to mitigate the problems, living in space or low G like the moon or Mars isn't feasible is my point. We aren't going to send people into an unknown hazard and then see if they live, or suffer. We will do years of studies and short trips before that happens.

That's centripetal force, not artificial gravity. It works well enough for rotating in space but doesn't help on a planet surface. I'm not sure how you think that would work under low gravity on a planet.

Mars is pulling just under 0.4 G and we actually don't know the effects of lifetime exposure to low gravity. We have data on low/no gravity short term, from space missions, and have observed that little to no gravity has a negative effect on bone density and muscle mass. Also circulatory changes happen causing "puffy face" but we don't know the long term effects would be for someone raised in 0.4 G on Mars, for example.

I'm not sure where you get your information that Mars gravity isn't an issue for adults and low gravity only would affect children and pregnancies only. Do you have a source so I can read into it some more?

Humans evolved to live on Earth.

Anywhere we go away from our home planet will have negative physiological effects over time until we either adapt our biology to different conditions or replicate near exact Earth conditions elsewhere. Atmosphere and radiation shielding we can manage but artificial gravity is still science fiction.

We can visit, and stay to a point, but plans to live there long term isn't feasible yet.

Private Corporation according to a quick Wikipedia search.

Absolutely. Technology is our limitation right now, but theoretically if technology keeps advancing eventually the speed of light will be our limitation.

Even the ludicrously fast speed of light is prohibitively slow to explore much of the universe. Perhaps we will find a way around it, but science hasn't come close to the science fiction yet in that regard.

It could be warp drives etc or some kind of effectively FTL travel are possible, but if not the speed of light might just be an impassable barrier preventing long distance exploration, which would be tragic.

Sounds like a space tourism hotspot

I remember when James Webb was 10 years away. I also remember waiting several years for Curiosity, and also Cassini.

This is just the pace of the space travel. I look at it as a bonus, you get to celebrate twice. Once at launch and again at destination.

I believe you're right.

There are other ways to collect seawater without risking contamination, is my point. There was also a plan to drill a core, allow it to fill up and freeze, then extract the ice from the tube and study it that way. I'm not sure what the precautions against contamination are, but NASA has a department dedicated to keeping earth microbes out of possible extraterrestrial systems.

There are geysers that shoot off into space that can be collected without drilling.

I'm not an expert either, but am really excited for the Clipper mission. I've been hearing about it for years and can't wait to see the results of the first data.

If the theories about Europas oceans are correct it's a very exciting time. Europa will teach us a lot about extraterrestrial life, even if it's barren.