Nuclear pulse and fission fragment designs require no new physics in the same way that a Saturn 5 didn't require new physics when compared to a Goddard toy rocket.
It's easy until you try to actually build the damn thing. Then you discover it's not easy at all, and there's actually quite a bit of new physics required.
It's not New Physics™ in the warp drive and wormhole sense, but any practical interstellar design is going to need some wild and extreme advances in materials science and manufacturing, never mind politics, psychology, and the design of stable life support ecologies.
The same applies to the rest. Napkin sketches and attractive vintage art from the 70s are a long way from a practical design.
We've all been brainwashed by Hollywood. Unfortunately CGI and balsa models are not reality. Building very large objects that don't deform and break under extremes of radiation, temperature changes, and all kinds of physical stresses is not remotely trivial. And we are nowhere close to approaching it.
I thought I was pretty clear that I don't see this happening for hundreds of years at least.
The engineering problem is insurmountable today. But there doesn't seem to be any reason it couldn't be done eventually, given our technological trajectory, unless we believe we are truly on the precipice of severe diminishing returns in most science and engineering fields, and I just don't see that right now.
George Cayley figured out how to build an airplane in 1799, but it wasn't for another century until materials science and high power-to-weight ratio engines made the Wright Flyer possible.
There are plenty of depths to plumb in space systems engineering that we haven't even really had a proper look at yet. A Mars mission with chemical propulsion is hard, but could be made substantially easier with nuclear thermal propulsion - something we know should work, given the successful test fires on the NERVA program back in the 60s. First stage reusability was fantasy 15 years ago, today it's routine.
Obviously, I'm extrapolating a long way out, and maybe at some point we'll run against an unexpected wall. But we'll never know until we get there.
> Obviously, I'm extrapolating a long way out, and maybe at some point we'll run against an unexpected wall.
GP has set the 'low bar' of providing a material that survives a series of nuclear blasts whilst generating useful thrust. I'm not qualified to judge whether or not that requires new physics but it seems to me that if we had such a material that we'd be using it for all kinds of applications. Instead, we rely on the physical properties of the materials we already know in configurations that do not lend themselves to the kind of use that you describe.
That's the difference between science and science fiction, it is easy to write something along those lines and go 'wouldn't it be nice if we had X?'. But if 'X' requires new physics then you've just crossed over into fantasy land and then further discussion is pointless until you show the material or a path to get to the material.
See also: space elevators, ringworlds, dyson spheres etc. Ideas are easy. Implementation is hard.
My idealistic part says that a combination of AI-driven technical orchestration (much more than just coding) and orbital/langrange manufacturing facilities could, perhaps, get somewhere in the not ridiculously distant future (centuries rather than millenia)
A more pragmatic me would point out that the required energy and materials needed would mean we would need breakthroughs in space-based solar capture and mining, but this is still not New Physics.
I think the solution will come from exponentially advancing self-assembling machines in space. These can start small and, given the diminishing cost of getting things to space, some early iterations of the first generation could be mere decades away. There are several interesting avenues for self-assembling machines that are way past napkin-sketch phase. Solar arrays are getting bigger and we have already retrieved the first material from an asteroid.
The quality and reliability of AI agents for processes orchestration and technical reflection is now at a stage where it can begin to self-optimise, so even without (EDIT) a "take-off" scenario, these machines can massively outperform people in manufacturing orchestration, and I would say we are only some years from having tools that are good enough for much larger scale (i.e. planetary) operations.
Putting humans there is a whole other story. We are so fragile and evolved to live on Earth. Unsurprisingly, this biological tether doesn't get much of a look-in here. Just being on the ISS is horrible for a person's physiology and, I am guessing there would be a whole host of space sicknesses that would set in after a few years up there or elsewhere. Unless we find a way to modify our biology enough so we can continually tolerate or cure these ailments, and develop cryo-sleep, we're probably staying local - both of these are much more speculative that everything above, as far as i can tell.
Yeah this is something I think a lot of people tend to overlook. People are far too quick to rewrite "we don't know of any reason why it would be impossible" to "we know how to do it" in their heads.