I fully agree with your points: the hard, unyielding reality which most Trekkie fanatics refuse to acknowledge, except for one: "severe toll on the human physique in microgravity conditions."

That's easily fixed!

Spinning a space station for gravity is straightforward, it's just that the ISS wasn't designed for it, and NASA didn't have the budget to build a second, bigger space station with "extra engineering challenges" on top.

It's definitely practical though, it's just a matter of launching enough mass to orbit.

Like you said, Starship is going to change a lot of things, starting with space station design.

> spinning ... for gravity

Yeah, I mean, I get that the spinning has long been a viable proposition. Perhaps if we send a spinning expedition to Mars, the astronauts won't be toddlers when they arrive on a barren, hostile, resource-free world. Yet, that is a lot of extra mass; that is non-zero extra fuel; that is a lot of extra "stuff goes wrong" risk inherent in that design.

But it's unprecedented, untried, and not currently in any pipeline, AFAIK. I believe there were a few experimental spinning crewed flights, during the original Space Race. But does Starship spin and simulate gravity? Is there any crewed spinning spacecraft extant, in production, or even being designed?

They don't need to spin their way to the Moon, so it would be unlikely that any Artemis or future crewed Moon mission spins at all. But if spinning our way to Mars will solve an otherwise intractable set of problems, I suppose we'd better get started on proving it.