[jacquesm]

You can not possibly make that claim with any degree of certainty. The difference between going to Mars and going to even the nearest star with a manned spacecraft is roughly equivalent to the difference between 'science' and 'science fiction'.

[garmaine]

This IS my field, and I can make that claim. The Starship is designed to operate as a reusable, in-situ refutable vehicle in the regime of <4km/s delta-V trajectories. That is sufficient to get anywhere through staging, using other starships as tankers. It is designed for this.

By analogy it's like pointing out that an off-road jeep is sufficient to get anywhere on Earth, even with only a 300 mile range, because jeeps can carry supplies and/or an extra tank of gas as its cargo instead of people, with staging outposts (gas & maintenance stations) setup and supplied every few hundred miles.

[jacquesm]

> This IS my field, and I can make that claim.

You can make the claim that it is your field, which makes it a simple appeal to authority. But that doesn't make your claim true. There are lots of people in lots of fields that make claims that turn out to be bogus and this - to me - seems to be one of those.

If you honestly believe that we have solved all the interesting problems in interstellar travel and it's 'a mere matter of engineering' then that's fine with me, you're going to have to live with me not believing you.

Best of luck, and - FWIW - I hope you succeed but I highly doubt that you will, the whole 'we are less than a century away from X' stuff is exactly why I say it is science fiction and not science, you can't possibly know the future to that degree.

[garmaine]

I made no such claim that we have solved all interesting problems. Merely that the self-sufficiency that could be achieved on such a timescale would be sufficient to support limitless expansion into the cosmos. It’s the bare minimum, if you will.