It makes me wonder when we'll have anything set foot in another star system. I would guess realistically after 2100, but then we went from the Wright brothers to landing on the moon in under 70 years... so I may be proven wrong.
Back of the envelope math - 4.2 light years to the nearest star that's not the sun, current vehicles traveling about 10x the speed of voyager (e.g. 1 light day in 5 years). If something was launched today it would get to the nearest star system in about 7,660 years (assuming that star system also a radius of 1 light day).
100x faster than current (1,000km/s) would still take 76 years.
Definitely not before 2100 and almost certainly so long after that we will seem like a primitive civilization compared to those that do it.
It's maybe too speculative to even matter, but I don't think it's _crazy_ to imagine a handful of AI-fueled advances in materials discovery during the next decade or two. Possibly enough to unlock laser fusion, or something that could be crammed onto a spacecraft.
There is no amount of money in the world that would get me on the ChatGPT rocket
For machine intelligence, though, it would be easy. Just switch yourself off for a few thousand years.
It's likely that our "children" will go to the stars, not us.
You'd ship embryos and caregiver robots, start breeding/raising people 30 years before you'd arrive.
You are told you are to about make the great achievement humankind has ever made but all you want is a little bit more food and to take a shower.
As I understand it, not really. Parker Solar Probe is crazy fast, but only because it has that trajectory, and is unable to just change course and keep that speed in other directions.
If you want to launch something for deep space, the Jupiter-Saturn slingshot is still the most powerful trajectory we know of.
Today's rocket engines would give the probe a higher initial speed, but the final velocity would not differ dramatically. A fair bit higher, but not orders of magnitude.
You are underestimating acceleration. To travel and come to a stop at 4.2 light years, a spaceship with 1g acceleration barely needs 3.5 years in relativistic ship time (~6 years earth time).
The technology to sustain 1g acceleration through 3.5 years is a different story, but very much within our understanding of physics (and not warp drives, etc). 20-50 years of engineering can get us there.
What energy source do you think is merely 20-50 years of engineering effort away from being able to power that kind of journey?
Our moon landing missions had a similar ratio, so I assume we can do the engineering to make even a slightly worse ratio work for us a 100 years after it.
In practice it would be better with slingshot maneuvers and picking up mass on the way.
I want to believe, but I think it'll be a lot more than that. The rocket equation is a stone cold bitch in this case.
Sustaining the thrust that accelerates a probe at 1g is very different to sustaining the thrust to move the probe and all the fuel. And it's much worse if you want to stop and not just fly past into deep space.
It might not be. Plenty of hydrogen around everywhere. We just need tech to use it.
Make it collide with stuff colliding with the ship, redirect it's energy for propulsion.
My point is that we are in the realm of just needing new engineering (how to make nuclear reactions, or even antimatter-matter collision work for this goal), not new science (warp drives, something else we don't understand about space or gravity, or mass).