2002-03-02 Jim,
How accurate is the original numbers you present below? For example, how close is 360 miles (whatever type) to the actual altitude? What is the tolerance of distance? The point I am trying to make is, why convert an obvious rational number such as 360 to either 667 or 579? Why not 670 and 580? If we are going to get people to accept the metric system, we have to make numbers easy to work with and remember. Plus, numbers that are rational tend to look more like it was meant to be that way and gives more weight to the notion that NASA really works in metric and just converts to FFU for the press and not the other way around. The more we make SI look beautiful and FFU ugly, the better chance we have of gaining acceptance for SI. The same is true with the pis numbers. I would have chosen 100 kPa instead of 101 kPa. I'm sure 100 kPa is within tolerance and close enough for any discussion. 100 kPa is easy to remember and looks more rational than 101 kPa. Again, 101 kPa looks like a converted number, even if the pis number is highly irrational. It is nice that the 10.2 came out to a nice, rounded, rational 70 kPa. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "James R. Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, 2002-03-02 09:43 Subject: [USMA:18480] Posting on NASA's SM3B discussion board > I posted the following on the SM3B discussion board at > http://sm3b.gsfc.nasa.gov --> "talk to us" > and someone (Carmen) has posted a response. In that order they read as > shown below. > > Friday, March 01, 2002 - 09:52 pm > > I see small signs that NASA is occasionally complying with the recent > Inspector General's report by including metric equivalents when > reporting quantities in other units. That greatly benefits the tens of > millions of students who are preparing to live in a totally metric > environment. In addition, this makes the information more accessible to > the 95% of the world's people who are already fully metricated and who > receive absolutely no training on feet, miles, and psi. > > A few quantities seem to have slipped through the cracks, though. The > NASA pages refer to the altitude as 360 miles and do not provide a > metric equivalent. If those are nautical miles, then that would be 667 > km. If those are statute miles, then the altitude would be 579 km. One > hopes that NASA knows which of these two altitudes the orbiter is at. We > would like to know, too. Which is it, NASA -- 667 km or 579 km? There > are three different miles used in the USA but only one kilometer, so I > trust statements which use kilometers. > > Also, reference is made here and there to cabin pressures of 14.7 psi > and 10.2 psi. Those equate to 101 kPa and 70 kPa, respectively. > > NASA, it's nice to see you heading towards globally understandable > communications. > > J.R. Frysinger, CAMS > Dept. of Physics and Astronomy > College of Charleston > Charleston, SC 29424 > http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj > > Saturday, March 02, 2002 - 01:34 am > > Thank You JR for the translations. I don't know why Americans insist on > using measurements that are impossible to learn, and extremely difficult > to work with. And when you get a result, it is meaningless. > > >From what I understand, NASA actually uses metric units in its work. > Even its founder, Dr. Werner von Braun, never used American measurements > and loathed them. His designs and concepts were strictly metric. > > I can't imagine the confusion, errors and cost that the US must incur by > constantly converting and reconverting figures. We in the world work > only in metric and never endure this headache. > > No wonder American products don't sell outside the US. > > > > -- > Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!" > James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/ > 10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789 >
