It seems you are trying to read between the lines in what I am saying or something. What I am saying is exactly what I said, taken literally. Some of what I have said can be almost summarized as an argument that (b) isn't necessarily true and might well be false. Except that (b) seems to be based on a misrepresentation of my previous arguments, which were that biological entities that have been genetically enhanced and augmented with technology might end up being the state of the art for maintaining and carrying out interstellar missions before classical robots with AI are. I never said humans, except when I said it could be possible that our descendants or creations may fit this category at some point.Okay, we're saying that:
a) An uncrewed interstellar craft is still potentially far in the future, but is plausible. Especially if a trip to Alpha Centauri that takes a hundred years is acceptable.
b) A crewed mission to Alpha Centauri presents an additional order of magnitude of difficulty. And, rather than be an overall help to a mission, a human crew would make the mission an order of magnitude harder to achieve.
What are you saying?
I haven't said anything about (a) except to imply that 100 years isn't a long time in the grand scheme of things, and that all of the proposed missions I've seen identify automatons as being necessary in order to repair damage. I just got free, so I'll post the links to those proposals.