It takes 70,000 years to travel to closest star with our current technology...

So it makes perfect sense to wait until some better drives are developed.

Take a look at this table, if you like 'warp drives' idea:
[link to i.imgur.com]

Why would we want to do that anyway?

Give me 1.3 billion dollars and a work force and I can build an unmanned vessel that can reach any of the stars found on this map: [link to www.atlasoftheuniverse.com] within 12.5 light years in 25 years from the start of the journey.

Give me 13 billion and it can be a manned mission.

I can get a man to any of those stellar systems and back with in his lifetime tapping into relativity.

BTW I laid out thermodynamic energy available in the solar system along with how to scoop up hydrogen as a fuel for your ion drive here: Thread: Nuclear Space Rockets and the Most Fascinating NASA Man You’ve Never Heard Of

Voyager 1 is NOT current technology.

We have ion drive now, and the ability to scoop matter from interstellar space.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Using an Ion drive coupled with a fusion reactor, means one can see at least 30 years of continued acceleration.

Even if you have an acceleration of only 0.05 meters per second, over 15 years (473040000 seconds) your final velocity is 23,652,000 meter/second.

The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s

You are traveling at about 8% the speed of light.

Granted that isn't very fast, but in order to travel 4 light years it would only take 50 to 100 years.

It is feasible to construct a ship that can accelerate at 0.3 gee (3.33 m/s) using current ion engine technologies coupled with tapping the thermal differential of natural space.

Boosting constantly for only 2 years (63072000 seconds)

Means you would achieve a velocity of 210,029,760 m/s

That is 70.0583% the speed of light.

Assuming for the moment that relativity does not play a roll in the matter, it would take rough a decade (10 years) of accelerations, coasting at top speed and deceleration to reach the nearest star.

NASA and JPL and the rest make it much harder than it needs to be.

Even Einstein made a minor mistake that every one else follows through.

Einstein tells us that near light speed is not possible because mass (of the craft) becomes greater due to speed. however E=mc^2 (Energy = mass times the speed of light squared) gives us more energy from a mass of matter traveling at greater velocities - why? because the fuel attains a higher mass as well as the craft.

Relative to each other, the mass of the craft to the fuel remains the same. Relative to the rest of the universe the mass of the craft and the fuel increases. The fuel gives out more energy relative to the universe due to its greater velocity.

We cannot accept that mass increases as we travel at relativistic velocities without accepting that the energy strips from that more massive matter also increases due to more mass.

Give me 1.3 billion dollars and a work force and I can build an unmanned vessel that can reach any of the stars found on this map: [link to www.atlasoftheuniverse.com] within 12.5 light years in 25 years from the start of the journey.

Give me 13 billion and it can be a manned mission.

I can get a man to any of those stellar systems and back with in his lifetime tapping into relativity.

BTW I laid out thermodynamic energy available in the solar system along with how to scoop up hydrogen as a fuel for your ion drive here: Thread: Nuclear Space Rockets and the Most Fascinating NASA Man You’ve Never Heard Of

Voyager 1 is NOT current technology.

We have ion drive now, and the ability to scoop matter from interstellar space.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Using an Ion drive coupled with a fusion reactor, means one can see at least 30 years of continued acceleration.

Even if you have an acceleration of only 0.05 meters per second, over 15 years (473040000 seconds) your final velocity is 23,652,000 meter/second.

The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s

You are traveling at about 8% the speed of light.

Granted that isn't very fast, but in order to travel 4 light years it would only take 50 to 100 years.

It is feasible to construct a ship that can accelerate at 0.3 gee (3.33 m/s) using current ion engine technologies coupled with tapping the thermal differential of natural space.

Boosting constantly for only 2 years (63072000 seconds)

Means you would achieve a velocity of 210,029,760 m/s

That is 70.0583% the speed of light.

Assuming for the moment that relativity does not play a roll in the matter, it would take rough a decade (10 years) of accelerations, coasting at top speed and deceleration to reach the nearest star.

NASA and JPL and the rest make it much harder than it needs to be.

Even Einstein made a minor mistake that every one else follows through.

Einstein tells us that near light speed is not possible because mass (of the craft) becomes greater due to speed. however E=mc^2 (Energy = mass times the speed of light squared) gives us more energy from a mass of matter traveling at greater velocities - why? because the fuel attains a higher mass as well as the craft.

Relative to each other, the mass of the craft to the fuel remains the same. Relative to the rest of the universe the mass of the craft and the fuel increases. The fuel gives out more energy relative to the universe due to its greater velocity.

We cannot accept that mass increases as we travel at relativistic velocities without accepting that the energy strips from that more massive matter also increases due to more mass.

Give me 1.3 billion dollars and a work force and I can build an unmanned vessel that can reach any of the stars found on this map: [link to www.atlasoftheuniverse.com] within 12.5 light years in 25 years from the start of the journey.

Give me 13 billion and it can be a manned mission.

I can get a man to any of those stellar systems and back with in his lifetime tapping into relativity.

BTW I laid out thermodynamic energy available in the solar system along with how to scoop up hydrogen as a fuel for your ion drive here: Thread: Nuclear Space Rockets and the Most Fascinating NASA Man You’ve Never Heard Of

[link to www.dailymail.co.uk]