Gentlemen,
There are two issues here. One is what we would like to have happen,
and I may not disagree with you on that.
The other is the problem I originally set. My committee writes
"consensus standards" which means that it represents the best practice
as perceived by the industry (producers and users). So, if the current
acceptable practice in aerospace is different than pure SI, it is.
Our standards are reviewed for adequacy every 5 years (really) and
revised if appropriate. So we evolve with our industry. Can anyone
point me to a NASA site which states the existing policy?
Sid
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: [USMA:16146] SI in Aerospace Engineering
Author: <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > at INTERNET-MAIL
Date: 11/13/2001 12:19 PM
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(after EAM had written:
SI is best for all engineering and technology, including aerospace
engineering. Only traditional practices and vested economic interests
impede the universal adoption of SI.)
>
> Well said, Gene. I find it hard to see how anyone could cogently argue
> the contrary thesis.
Thanks for the compliment, Ezra.
> I just wish the winds of change would blow harder
> in the direction of aerospace engineering!
> ...
My wish also. Perhaps the new administrator of NASA can be persuaded
to promote SI more vigorously in spite of congressional complaints of
NASA,s spending beyond budgets on the Space Station.
Gene.
