Interstellar Travel Considerations:
1) Space is big, really, really, really big. Let me try to put it into perspective...
from http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/scales.htm
Interstellar distances are so astronomical (pun intended) that it is difficult to convey this expanse. Consider the following analogy: If the sun were the size of a typical, 1/2 inch diameter marble, the distance from the sun to the Earth, called an "Astronomical Unit (AU)" would be about 4 feet, the Earth would be barely thicker than a sheet of paper, and the orbit of the Moon would be about a 1/4 inch in diameter. On this scale, the closest neighboring star is about 210 miles away.
Another example is light. It takes light about 8 minutes to get to the Earth from the sun. From the closest star, light takes over 4 years to get to earth. How fast does light travel? Well, sit in a dark room, turn on the light switch and start counting. I'll bet you didn't even get to "..." before you see the light. And "..." is a much shorter time than counting to "one".
2) Time. It should be intuitive that the faster you travel, the quicker you get there. But we are currently restricted on the velocity we can achive, much less than the universal speed limit of speed-of-light. Look at these examples of how long it would take to get to the Centauri stars at various speeds, from the same site listed above:
At 55 miles-per-hour for example, it would take over 50 million years to get there.
At a more typical spacecraft speed, for example the 3-day trip time that it took the Apollo spacecraft to reach the moon, it would still take over 900 thousand years
And even if we consider the staggering speed of 37-thousand miles-per-hour, which was the speed of the NASA Voyager spacecraft as it left our solar system years ago, the trip would still take 80,000 years.
Even if we achieve 100 times the speed of Voyager, it would still take 800 years, and keep in mind this is to the closest star system. That means, we would either have to have about 40 generations of humans living on the craft before they arrived, or we would have to go faster than light, theoretically impossible.
3) Propulsion. All of our current propulsion systems utilize Newton's third law of action-reaction. That means in order to accelerate, we have to push some mass in the opposite direction. The more we want to accelerate the more mass we have to push out of the spacecraft , pushing it out faster helps. But this means that we have to carry extra fuel (mass) which means we have to push even more out just to accelerate the craft with all this extra fuel mass.
Here is a graphic of how much of 4 types of propellant are needed to send a school-bus sized craft to the nearest star, allowing 900 years to get there.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/images/warp/warp06.gif
Things get even worse if you accually want to stop once you get there because you need almost as much propellent to slow down. Almost as much, because you already threw away a lot of mass accelerating. actually it is much less, but in this context, "much less" still means quite a lot.
4) Energy. (quote from same source)
Even if we had a nonrocket space drive that could convert energy directly into motion without propellant, it would still require a lot of energy. Sending a Shuttle-sized vehicle on a 50 year one-way trip to visit our nearest neighboring star (subrelativistic speed) would take over 7 x 10^19 Joules of energy. This is roughly the same amount of energy that the Space Shuttle’s engines would use if they ran continuously for the same duration of 50 years. To overcome this difficulty, we need either a breakthrough where we can take advantage of the energy in the space vacuum, a breakthrough in energy production physics, or a breakthrough where the laws of kinetic energy don’t apply.
This page: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/ideachev.htm
(another part of what I've been quoting) has some basic information on:
-Worm Hole transportation
-Alcubierre’s "Warp Drive"
-Negative mass propulsion
-Millis’s hypothetical "Space Drives"
(edit: fixed a misspelling, there may be more.)