@Liljo
So out of 5000 sightings, about 200 are terrestrial sized, the next question is how many of those 200 are in the goldilocks zone, where liquid water can live? I wonder how many stars have been measured that have ZERO planets around them.
My guess is there would be way less of those than even terrestrial planets since the stars and planets form from a nebula cloud contracting under the force of gravity and it would take a special set of circumstances to have all the proto planets disappear leaving the star planetless. But the ratio of planets total V Terrestrial is clocking in better than 3% which would mean a BUNCH of terrestrial planets total, and of course I would guess 90% of those would be either fried by being too close or covered with dry ice or solid nitrogen if way out or like a Venus if too close.
And the idea of a terrestrial planet in the goldilocks zone has to also take into account, does it have an atmosphere and if so, what kind. Like Venus if it has a sulfuric acid atmosphere, it wouldn't be much of a draw if we ever go interstellar.
My first choice if we ever do get close to c, I would go to Alpha Centauri, three stars for the price of one and less than 5 light years away.
But even that, if we could only go 1/10th c, it would still take about 50 years just to get there and another 50 to get back, not a trip to even contemplate ATT.
So it will take ship going at least 0.5 c and even at that it would take 3.7 years or so for a one way journey.
And at 0.5 c, there would not much help for the travelers to get from the velocity to make the journey faster at least for the crew. At that speed the 4.3 light year distance to the Alpha Centauri triple system would take about 3.7 years or about 7.5 years instead of 8.6 years passing by on Earth. About a 15% savings in time for the travelers. You don't get serious reductions in perceived travel time till you get to say 0.95 c