Well, at 1400 light years away it would take at least 1400 years to get there at light speed. Unless a space warp gets invented - but - I'm not too hopeful about that - mainly because - if it is possible, where are all the interstellar travelers from other stars and galaxies? Anyway - we don't have it yet. And if we do it changes everything, depending how it works. I think can't say much more about that.
So apart from that, depends how you travel, and whether it matters if you hit interstellar dust. Two main ways - could have very large heavy spacecraft with massive shields (or they actually gather and use the dust and gas as fuel) - or you have lots of tiny spacecraft and send millions of them, robotic spacecraft, on the basis that if you send many, a few of them will make it all the way.
The main hazard might be the interstellar medium - hitting even a tiny dust particle at close to the speed of light might be devastating depending on your spacecraft.
As for the technology, well if you are willing to use exploding hydrogen bombs to power your spacecraft, we could have done it in the 1970s. The amount of propulsive power is so huge, that you can send a spacecraft weighing thousands, even millions of tons into orbit from the Earth surface all the way to a nearby star with no need to refuel. And with a huge "pusher plate" between the crew and the bombs they let off, it could even be a manned spaceflight (if you can figure out how to keep them alive, closed system ecosystem etc for the long journey) - it wouldn't be particularly hazardous for the crew as space missions go. It would need more than all the hydrogen bombs of USA and Russia even at height of cold war to get as far as the nearest star, but they came to the conclusion that it is technologically reasonable that it could be done even with 1970s technology.
But it's of course a major hazard for the Earth, they looked into it seriously, but even if you can deal with other safety issues, launching the spacecraft would involve exploding several large hydrogen bombs in the Earth atmosphere and increase risk of death from cancer etc. if nothing else.
It is something we could do if for some reason it became worth all the risks involved in the project.
With present day technology, then we are developing other approaches such as laser powered flight. For more about some of the ideas, see the wikipedia article:
Interstellar travel
Anyway - it's really of interest as the first discovered member of a large population of Earth size planets around sun like stars. It might well not be habitable. But somewhat increases the prospect that we might find similar planets around nearby stars even Alpha Centauri.
Though again - we don't know yet even if stars like our sun are the best place to look for life. We know that at least one life bearing planet exists around a sun like star, ours. But know of many candidate habitable planets around other types of stars such as red or orange dwarfs, and they also are more common than sun-like stars. So probably shouldn't restrict our attention to stars like ours. They might be the best place to look for life, or there again, may life is common around other type of stars.
So - a bit soon to plan out a long interstellar journey to nearby stars. Also there's a bit of a paradox about interstellar flight. Unless your spacecraft travels close to the speed of light then the chances are that by the time you are only a fraction of the way to your star, that someone else has invented a new form of interstellar travel and their spacecraft has already got there - even though they started out later.
E.g. at some point in the future it might take a hundred years to get to Alpha Centauri. But twenty years later someone works out how to get to it in thirty years (say). So the later spacecraft would then get there 50 years before the first launched one. This disparity gets much larger for really long flights of several centuries.
As technology improves, journey times likely to decrease like that. So until the journey times get down to at most a few decades, or alternatively, speeds get close to speed of light - chances are that it is better to postpone actually sending anything on an interstellar flight until the technology is improved first.
And for the same reason surely the first interstellar flights would be to the nearest stars just over four light years away - again - except for spacecraft able to travel at close to the speed of light. If you can do that - which may be possible with small robotic spacecraft, you could send them to stars a few tens of light years away and it would still seem worth doing it right now rather than wait for the technology to improve.
Or if really close, like 90% or 99% of the speed of light, well it would make sense to send out the spacecraft even for long journeys of hundreds of light years right away - assuming of course you have motivations to do something now that has results only several centuries in the future.
So apart from that, depends how you travel, and whether it matters if you hit interstellar dust. Two main ways - could have very large heavy spacecraft with massive shields (or they actually gather and use the dust and gas as fuel) - or you have lots of tiny spacecraft and send millions of them, robotic spacecraft, on the basis that if you send many, a few of them will make it all the way.
The main hazard might be the interstellar medium - hitting even a tiny dust particle at close to the speed of light might be devastating depending on your spacecraft.
As for the technology, well if you are willing to use exploding hydrogen bombs to power your spacecraft, we could have done it in the 1970s. The amount of propulsive power is so huge, that you can send a spacecraft weighing thousands, even millions of tons into orbit from the Earth surface all the way to a nearby star with no need to refuel. And with a huge "pusher plate" between the crew and the bombs they let off, it could even be a manned spaceflight (if you can figure out how to keep them alive, closed system ecosystem etc for the long journey) - it wouldn't be particularly hazardous for the crew as space missions go. It would need more than all the hydrogen bombs of USA and Russia even at height of cold war to get as far as the nearest star, but they came to the conclusion that it is technologically reasonable that it could be done even with 1970s technology.
But it's of course a major hazard for the Earth, they looked into it seriously, but even if you can deal with other safety issues, launching the spacecraft would involve exploding several large hydrogen bombs in the Earth atmosphere and increase risk of death from cancer etc. if nothing else.
It is something we could do if for some reason it became worth all the risks involved in the project.
With present day technology, then we are developing other approaches such as laser powered flight. For more about some of the ideas, see the wikipedia article:
Interstellar travel
Anyway - it's really of interest as the first discovered member of a large population of Earth size planets around sun like stars. It might well not be habitable. But somewhat increases the prospect that we might find similar planets around nearby stars even Alpha Centauri.
Though again - we don't know yet even if stars like our sun are the best place to look for life. We know that at least one life bearing planet exists around a sun like star, ours. But know of many candidate habitable planets around other types of stars such as red or orange dwarfs, and they also are more common than sun-like stars. So probably shouldn't restrict our attention to stars like ours. They might be the best place to look for life, or there again, may life is common around other type of stars.
So - a bit soon to plan out a long interstellar journey to nearby stars. Also there's a bit of a paradox about interstellar flight. Unless your spacecraft travels close to the speed of light then the chances are that by the time you are only a fraction of the way to your star, that someone else has invented a new form of interstellar travel and their spacecraft has already got there - even though they started out later.
E.g. at some point in the future it might take a hundred years to get to Alpha Centauri. But twenty years later someone works out how to get to it in thirty years (say). So the later spacecraft would then get there 50 years before the first launched one. This disparity gets much larger for really long flights of several centuries.
As technology improves, journey times likely to decrease like that. So until the journey times get down to at most a few decades, or alternatively, speeds get close to speed of light - chances are that it is better to postpone actually sending anything on an interstellar flight until the technology is improved first.
And for the same reason surely the first interstellar flights would be to the nearest stars just over four light years away - again - except for spacecraft able to travel at close to the speed of light. If you can do that - which may be possible with small robotic spacecraft, you could send them to stars a few tens of light years away and it would still seem worth doing it right now rather than wait for the technology to improve.
Or if really close, like 90% or 99% of the speed of light, well it would make sense to send out the spacecraft even for long journeys of hundreds of light years right away - assuming of course you have motivations to do something now that has results only several centuries in the future.
About the Author
Robert Walker
Writer of articles on Mars and Space issues - Software Developer of Tune Smithy, Bounce Metronome etc.Studied at Wolfson College, Oxford
Lives in Isle of Mull
4.8m answer views110.3k this month
Top Writer2017, 2016, and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Slate, and 4 moreHuffPost, Slate, Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Science 2.0