Some of your comments are similar to the reasons behind my having used
the phrase "to some extent". Nonetheless, "space quailfied"
requirements have ramifications that must be similar to "SUBSAFE" and
Nucear Reactor Plant Safety qualifications on materials and procedures
with which I worked on submarines. If your car breaks down at the side
of a country road and you have to wait 12 hours for somebody to come
help you, it's a bummer. But if you're submerged in the middle of the
ocean or under the polar ice cap -- or if you're in orbit around the
earth -- even a AAA card or some magic button on your dashboard isn't
going to help. So, changes to plans, procedures, studies, etc. are not
made lightly or quickly.
Somethings of course CAN change. I suggested a change in the analytical
procedure used to measure boiler chemicals -- from colorimetric
(comparison chart) to potentiometric titration. A year later Naval
Reactors started field testing it, side by side with the old procedure.
Several months later the change to the water chemistry manual for
reactor plants was made. That took only a couple of years. It took
Naval Reactors 10 years to accept transistorized circuits for reactor
plant indication and controls circuits and for nuclear instrument
(power level) circuits. Ten years after ICs were in Radio Shack, Naval
Reactors still refrained from using them.
Did you know that the newest computer microprocessor that is space
qualified is a 486 class microprocessor? As I said, if you haven't been
there....
Jim
On Sunday 11 March 2001 1137, kilopascal wrote:
> 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
--
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
