On Tuesday 02 September 2003 04:40, Pat Naughtin wrote: > Be fair to the machinists. Have they got things like metric lathes and > metric machining mills.
I have great respect for a good machinist. Yes, you are right that without the right equipment, penciling in inches is the way to go. However, a large fraction of machines have digital read-outs that can display either inches or millimeters, and all the computerized "NC" machines speak both English and Metric. So I think the time is ripe to start setting up machinists with complete sets of metric tooling so they can truly start machining metric. More importantly, however, I'm trying to point out that since 1975, there has been enough new equipment purchased anyway and beginner machinists hired that NASA really should have been setting up and training metric-only machinists to work with metric-only drawings. > ... it is the newest machinists who get to use the oldest equipment. > > avoid buying metric tooling. > > If this is true, it is a serious problem. Of course it happens; I think your statement implying that new equipment goes to old machinists explains why. > > Therefore, most engineers draw inches drawings. > > Is this a cop-out.... Not really. The priorities are that the end product works, is delivered on time, and is on budget, in that order. It's not the engineer's responsibility to train the machinists! > This is a truly serious issue. Maybe senior management has not yet > discovered how to go about it; maybe senior management does not regard > metrication as a serious problem (they don't remember MCO); maybe senior > management doesn't have the resources to tackle such a large all-embracing > cultural change such as all of the the measures and all of the the > measuring systems used by NASA. Keep in mind, the real cause of the Mars Climate Orbiter failure was as much due to a failure of the mission assurance system as it was a problem of measuring systems. A spacecraft should never be lost because one engineer made a stupid mistake! > Whatever the problem, NASA needs to investigate and act on an 'organized > conversion effort' as a matter of urgency. You are absolutely right. > Feel confident, John. You know and I know that in the end, NASA will be a > fully metric organisation. The only doubt about NASA's metrication is how > long the process will take. In this context it might be interesting for you > to ask your colleagues these two questions. > 1 Will NASA eventually be an all metric organisation? > 2 How long do you think it will take before NASA is all metric? Once again, you are right. I've asked dozens of Americans from all walks of life your questions, posed this way: 1. Should America convert totally to the international metric system? 2. How long should it take? Most folks say that it should. Most people say it should be gotten over with relatively sooner rather than later. But most folks have a lot of fear based mostly on lack of good information. They think that from one day to the next they won't know how hot it is, how fast to drive, how far it is to the supermarket. They will feel lost! They don't realize that a well-planned conversion would be relatively painless for most people, and that after all, a tank of gas still costs the same whether it is priced by the gallon or by the liter. > Excuse me if you have seen it, but I am reposting a draft document (with > slight modifications) on the relative speed of metrication that I posted > here recently (see below). Yes, I enjoyed your posting, and hope we all manage to escape winning the prize for "worst way!" I hope that some day NASA upper-level management understands how important it is to lead a coordinated, well planned metrication effort. Thanks for all your thoughtful comments and feed-back, John
