It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
And I guess Illustronic was right all along, although he didn't worded it that well (its not pulled into solar orbit, it already was in solar orbit to begin with)
New Horizons is often erroneously given the title of Fastest Spacecraft Ever Launched, when in fact the Helios probes are the holders of that title. To be more specific New Horizons achieved the highest launch velocity and thus left Earth faster than any other spacecraft to date. It is also the first spacecraft launched directly into a solar escape trajectory, which requires an approximate velocity of 16.5 km/s (36,900 mph), plus losses, all to be provided by the launcher. However, it will not be the fastest spacecraft to leave the Solar System. This record is held by Voyager 1, currently travelling at 17.145 km/s (38,400 mph) relative to the Sun. Voyager 1 attained greater hyperbolic excess velocity from Jupiter and Saturn gravitational slingshots than New Horizons. Other spacecraft, such as Helios 1 & 2, can also be measured as the fastest objects, due to their orbital velocity relative to the Sun at perihelion. However, because they remain in solar orbit, their orbital energy relative to the Sun is lower than the five probes, and three other third stages on hyperbolic trajectories, including New Horizons, that achieved solar escape velocity, as the Sun has a much deeper gravitational well than Earth.
The Star 48B third stage is also on a hyperbolic Solar System escape trajectory, and reached Jupiter before the New Horizons spacecraft. However, since it is not in controlled flight, it did not receive the correct gravity assist, and will only pass within 200,000,000km (120,000,000 mi) of Pluto.
So which is it, 46.3 or 42.6?
After the Star 48B burn, the payload had reached escape velocity not only with respect to the Earth but also relative to the Sun (The velocity was 16.2 km/s relative to the Earth and I estimate an asymptotic velocity of 12.3 km/s, corresponding to 42.6 km/s relative to the Sun and leading to a heliocentric eccentricity of around 1.05).
Originally posted by Illustronic
I just want to add that previous post used exactly the maximum characters allowable for a post here, editing required, what do I win?
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by OZtracized
TheMindWar and justwokeup already answered the technical part of the question. I just want to add that the NASA page you linked, which is aimed at young kids, is wrong. It would only be true if the shuttle's engines shut off immediately after launch. The shuttle can go at a proverbial snail's pace and, as long as it has continuous thrust (providing continuous acceleration), it will leave Earth's orbit.
Truth be told, the main question I wanted cleared up is why the space shuttle etc apparently has to reach escape velocity to leave Earth's atmosphere.
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by OZtracized
I just want to add that the NASA page you linked, which is aimed at young kids, is wrong. It would only be true if the shuttle's engines shut off immediately after launch. The shuttle can go at a proverbial snail's pace and, as long as it has continuous thrust (providing continuous acceleration), it will leave Earth's orbit.
Originally posted by OZtracized
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by OZtracized
I just want to add that the NASA page you linked, which is aimed at young kids, is wrong. It would only be true if the shuttle's engines shut off immediately after launch. The shuttle can go at a proverbial snail's pace and, as long as it has continuous thrust (providing continuous acceleration), it will leave Earth's orbit.
I guess the next question is why did NASA post an obviously incorrect statement on its website? If it's aimed at kids, why go out of your way to feed the younger generation B.S.? Or is it that the person posting that info just has no idea? Either way, it sets a pretty bad example. Sorry to come across as pedantic (anally retentive) but let's start feeding our children "facts" as we know them. Not rubbish because we think that's all they can understand. Worse still, information from people who don't know what they're talking about.