For extra-Solar System travel, only the second and multiples thereof would be necessary. (Submultiples would be required, of course, for certain measurements.)
However, as we've evolved with an 86.4 ks diurnal cycle, it remains to be seen how astronauts would adapt to, say, a 100 ks cycle. There's also the question of whether anyone would want to make a lifelong commitment to being absent from Mother Earth. Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On >Behalf Of Han Maenen >Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 22:08 >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:23699] RE: nautical metrication > > >John Galt is right. This is for the time when we travel to the stars. On >spaceships we may develop a new system of time, that is >independent from the >behaviour of the Earth and the solar system. Such a system can be decimal >from the outset. In many cases decimal multiples and submultiples of the >secons are used today. >And even more, I oppose the proposed change in the SI units of length and >time, and the concept of a 'Nautical Kilometre'. There is no need for any >special nautical unit of measurement. GPS should have put an end to the >nautical mile. >Any idea what havoc the proposed increase of the meter and the decrease of >the second would cause? All SI units will change. The cost will be >astronomical. And of course, this would be very good fuel for the >opposotion. >But it would even hurt ifp, as SI is its life support machine. > >Han > > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John David Galt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Saturday, 2002-11-30 20:39 >Subject: [USMA:23686] RE: nautical metrication > > >> "Brij Bhushan Vij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Greetings for Captain and crew of Maverick: >> > This may be an expected intrusion, from an Ex-Air Forcean! >Yes, Knots >and Nautical miles have lived far too long and it is TIME we did some >review. I have been feeding 'some NEW thought' to reform the definitions of >SI-base units for Time and Length standards. >If the (day+night)of 24-hours is divided into 24x100x100 instead of the >present 24x60x60; the *yard and nautical mile* could be commissioned into >'history books' and 15-degree 'hour angle' be retained untouched. >Decimalisation of 'HOUR and Degree' could resolve to RETRIEVE the "concept >of Nautical Kilometre". >The New length standard shall be 1.11194886884 times the present *metre >length*, so as to merge with unit for Time - the 'decimal second which is >36% of SI-second'. My good wishes Mr. Mead! >> >> Originally (in revolutionary France), the metric system did include a >metric clock, defined so that >1 day = 10 metric hours = 1 000 metric minutes = 100 000 metric seconds. >> >> This was so confusing that it was abandoned after 16 months -- >even before >the metric (aka Revolutionary) calendar. > > We've learned this lesson already. Let's not repeat it. > > Regards, >John > >
