I think it’s good to attempt such challenges, even if just conceptually, as it makes lots of other things seem a lot more achievable in contrast, sometimes almost laughably so.
I think it’s good to attempt such challenges, even if just conceptually, as it makes lots of other things seem a lot more achievable in contrast, sometimes almost laughably so.
Interstellar space exploration will likely be manned-only. As other threads point out, with sufficient acceleration, due to time dilation, humans can reach distant stars within their own lifetimes (at the expense of thousands of years passing on Earth).
This is the same idea, you send a new an improved probe every 10-20 years and eventually you get data back and over time you have constant data stream from all kinds of different places.
And I know you excluded the “closest stars,” but I don’t understand why, except that it undermines your point. There are at least 3 nearby stars that could be reached by probes in a researcher’s (or at least their funding institution’s) lifetime vs just our one star system.
(Besides the 3 stars in the Proxima/Alpha Centauri system there are also at least 11 additional stars—including fusion-capable brown dwarfs—within 10 light years of the Sun.)
Why would our grandchildren be less interested in interstellar exploration than we are? We need ways to organize (parts of) society for the long term, that seems way easier than inventing magical "accelerate at 1g for a decade" tech.
This article (Starships & Cathedrals) explains the ideas better than I can in a short comment: https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2020/07/17/the-cathedral-and...