Fastest Spacecraft Ever?!?, Which one is it? Options

[Toma B]

There was statement that recently launched New Horizons is the fastest spacecraft to leave Earth. The velocity was 16.2 km/s relative to the Earth according to "Jonathan's Space Report".

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...

So:
New Horizons is fastest to leave Earth at 16.2 km/s (relative to Earth).
Voyager-1 is fastest to leave Solar System at 17.374 km/s (relative to Sun).

Now that is OK. but what is this?
Today's "Astronomy Picture of the Day" features launch of New Horizons and in text bellow image is one particularly interesting link to "Guinness world of records"...
Guinness world of records;
There "Mr. Guinness" claims that the fastest spacecrafts ever, were two Solar probes "Helios 1&2"...According to him those spacecrafts had speed of 252,800 km/h which is staggering 70.2 km/s...BUT RELATIVE TO WHAT?????
Can somebody explain this?

[dvandorn]

Yeah -- you'd end up with a pretty ragged, hole-ridden sail/solar panel by the time you got out to the Kuiper Belt. How are you going to create a really, really thin/lightweight sail/solar panel that can stand up to the high-energy dust impacts it's going to face? Gonna redirect some of that energy into intense magnetic fields that divert dust particles electrostatically?

Before we get too involved in discussions of new propulsion technologies, I will make the cautionary noise, here, that when Mike Griffin went before Congress last week, he was asked point-blank about new propulsion technology research. He said that NASA's immediate goals (including the full range of VSE goals) do not require any new propulsion technologies. He said that almost every NASA program, with the exception of the Shuttle/ISS wind-down, has been cut or delayed, including propulsion technology research. He said that there will be *no* new propulsion research for a decade or more.

BTW, he also said that, since Congress and this Administration refused to give NASA any additional monies to repair damage to Michoud, the Stennis Space Center, and the Kennedy Space Center incurred during last year's hurricane season, he was even stealing from the Shuttle/ISS funds to cover a roughly half-billion-dollar repair bill.

-the other Doug

[ljk4-1]

Before we get too involved in discussions of new propulsion technologies, I will make the cautionary noise, here, that when Mike Griffin went before Congress last week, he was asked point-blank about new propulsion technology research. He said that NASA's immediate goals (including the full range of VSE goals) do not require any new propulsion technologies. He said that almost every NASA program, with the exception of the Shuttle/ISS wind-down, has been cut or delayed, including propulsion technology research. He said that there will be *no* new propulsion research for a decade or more.

What a frightening and depressing statement. Does Griffin think that just
because he won't let NASA engineers and space scientists develop new
concepts of propulsion that other equally talented and visionary people
in other countries won't pursue this course? Or that he might drive US
talent to more receptive places?

The next time I hear Griffin or anyone else say that the USA must remain
at the forefront of space exploration and technology, I will remember this
statement.

It will be sadly ironic if in 2025 we have a handful of astronauts on the
Moon while the other space nations are sending probes to every planet
in the Sol system and beyond.

[djellison]

he won't let

He has no money. Having been told to do X things, by date Y with Z dollars he has no options left but to cull a lot of other programs. It sucks, it is very wrong, but it is the only thing that he can do given the parameters than have been handed down to him from on high.

Doug