2001-03-11
I could see you logic 10 years ago, but not today. Instrumentation can
easily be changed or recalibrate in the field, especially if it is a dual
type. Documentation can also be changed electronically. A computer can be
programmed to look for key words in documents, such as "feet", identify them
as a unit of measure and convert them to the appropriate SI unit with the
desired precision. Drawings done on CAD can also be converted. I'm not
saying it can be done over night, but it is not as impossible nor a big
expense as some will claim.
Over time, this space station will have to be upgraded as newer
technological devices are installed to replace old or not working devices.
Will SI be part of that upgrade? What about parts or modules provided by
Russia, the EU, Japan, and/or others? Are these countries forced to do it
in FFU to keep it consistent with American units? Or did these countries
say to hell with you, it is our money and we will contribute with our
system? Is this space station a hodge-podge of units? Doesn't this create
a safety hazard? Does that mean two sets of tools used on board, inch for
American parts and metric for everyone else's? What is going to happen when
the first mistake is made over measurements and a disaster occurs? we can't
assume that because the Russians or others aboard might be forced to use
non-SI that they will have a feel for it. And thus not make a serious
error.
Very foolish!
John
Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrtümlich glaubt
frei zu sein.
There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they
are free!
----- Original Message -----
From: "James R. Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, 2001-03-10 17:33
Subject: [USMA:11533] Re: NASA ft ft/s
> NASA's "reason" (i.e., excuse) for this is that the STS program was
> designed in "English", before the big 1988 almost-conversion of the
> government. They claim it would be too costly to change all the
> software and training manuals to SI.
>
> Actually, to some extent, I'm sympathetic. I've been involved in
> detailed operating procedure revisions and test plan revisions for the
> Naval Nuclear Propulsion program and it really IS a tedious and
> error-risking event to change the way something is measured. Unless one
> has been involved in something of this scale, the magnitude of the job
> cannot be appreciated. I reckon that the scope of the STS program
> design and U.S. nuclear submarine design are comparable in extent and
> complexity.
>
> What really frosts my cake though is the adamant refusal of the PAOs at
> JSC to express all the units in SI in their press releases. There is
> absolutely no mission risk involved in doing that. That's one of the
> points I am making in the letter I'm about to reproduce and distribute,
> in response to the NASA IG's letter and NASA Administration's response.
>
> I'm sure they have filters at the JSC PAO office by now that
> automatically transfer my emails to the trash. Robert, please blow off
> steam at them about not -- at least -- converting those arcane units to
> SI so we can all understand them. A pointed question for them. If they
> use "statute [survey] miles" instead of "regular miles", then do they
> use "survey feet" (= [1200/3937] m) instead of "normal feet" (= 0.3048
> m)? Sometimes they use nautical miles. How many nautical feet is that?
> ;-)
>
> Jim
>
> On Saturday 10 March 2001 1633, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 2001 March 10
> > NASA has done it again. The shuttle docked to the space station last
> > night. They used feet and feet per second. No metric. The crews
> > talked in feet. The public announcer used feet. The digital display
> > in the control room of the
> > approach showed feet: distance and speed: 402.5 and -5.13 with no
> > units shown. The public announcer added the units in reading the
> > numbers. Pity the poor Russian crew. NASA serves them badly.
> >
> > It seems that when NASA says they use SI they mean that somewhere in
> > NASA they may use SI but they do not mean they use no inch-pound.
> >
> > Maybe we should have less talk of "Use SI" and instead say "Never
> > use inch-pound."
> > Or go another way. Say "Always use SI". Perhaps Congress should
> > stop saying
> > "SI is preferred" and say "Always use SI".
> > Robert Bushnell
>
> --
> James R. Frysinger University/College of Charleston
> 10 Captiva Row Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
> Charleston, SC 29407 66 George Street
> 843.225.0805 Charleston, SC 29424
> http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cert. Adv. Metrication Specialist 843.953.7644
>
>
