There has always been theories of a perpetual motion machine
wiki. The idea that since energy cannot be created nor destroyed, there must be a mechanism of harnessing "lost" energy to create 100% efficiency. The second big hurdle is any object in motion will lose energy due to friction. It would appear to be solvent you need a greater than 100% efficiency, or the ability to "create" energy, which would clearly go against the laws of physics has we now know it.
Atlast Shrugged (even worse reference than Star Trek) had a theoretical machine that could pull static electricity from the space around it. It's possible that such a space craft could pull energy from the space around it for such a purpose, although the means of doing so and harnessing it for the use of fuel is clearly in the realm of "out there" possibilities. Either that or we could work on "creating energy". Einstein is right though, it would literally need "infinite" energy.
He also concludes based of E=MC^2 that the mass of an object increased as it approaches the speed of light. This is necessary as the speed of light is constant, since it has no mass. Thus an object with mass requires more energy to propel it. But to this only to the observor. To those on or in the object, the mass would appear to be the same. This can be seen in the orbit of Mercury. As the the planet moves closer to the sun, it's gravitational pull increase and so does it's velocity, and the mass as it appears on Earth increases. As it moves farther from the sun in orbit, the velocity decreases as well as it's mass. However, if you were on Mercury, you're mass would appear to you to be the same!
The question is if the E=MC^2 has written into law as most scientists believe it to be. I actually come from a background in Law, so I can see how much of contemporary science is grounded in stare decisis.