^The ISS as built was never intended to help "setup bases on the moon or mars".
Your first link is by a private organization with no say in the ISS.
Didn't say it had to be official.
Your second link refers to simulating the effects on the astronauts of a journey to mars - physiologically.
That's not the point on this one. This is dated Apr of this year. They haven't done this yet and their mind set is that Station could help with the this research aswell.
Your third link is from 1988 of a concept that was never built.
Aside from being obvious it doesn't contradict the intent for which I posted. NASA (among others) was the primary consultant for the entire series. And this sort of derails your objections because if all the station was meant to do is provide as a research platform and not be the gateway to solar system and beyond then then it really is step down from what NASA accomplished in the 70's. A joke in other words. Billions of dollar just to do research that could have been done by a space shuttle.
Regardless of the technologies and methods learned (which are few) this is the epitome of "pork barrel spending". And I sense you guys don't know what that is. Pork barrel is a derogatory term referring to appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's district.
Connect the dots.
X-30, X-33-, X-34,X-37, X-38, X-40, X-43, Delta Clipper
2. 2 Shuttle Disasters
3. Cancellation of the Shuttle program without a replacement.
4. In 2002, the aerospace industry accounted for $95 billion of economic activity in the United States, including $23.5 billion in employee earnings dispersed among some 576,000 employees
5. 790 Billion dollars of expenditure over 50 years and one miles stone of manned exploration.
It seems NASA is strictly a Conservative National Employment effort. That gets little done with an excessive amount of money (whether or not its their fault or the administration)
My books date back to the Apollo program and none of them depict the ISS as built to be a crucial component for a Mars or moon mission.
...and that invalidates NASA's concept drawings that are more updated? Your point is vague, please explain the significance of your opposition to NASA's own perceptions.