Terry, You realize that JPL has the highest degree of metrication of any NASA department. The biggest problem with NASA is that there is a mix of systems to varying degrees. On the pure science side, they are predominately to exclusively SI. On the engineering side, there is more non-metric used but SI is making inroads. Of course legacy systems like the space shuttle are 100% non-metric and are probably not going to change. As NASA is dependent on the private engineering sector for its projects, they need to make some changes to the culture and convince contractors of the benefits of moving projects to SI. This involves getting over the "old fogey" factor with senior engineers who are not willing to leave their comfort zones. What we need to do is convince NASA that the extra short-term cost of pushing metrication is well worth the long-term gain and that the investment will pay off many fold. The interesting thing is that many (on this list and other places) like to blame NASA for the Mars Orbiter fiasco. Remember, NASA was the one using metric while the contractor did not.
Phil http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/inspections/g-00-021.pdf -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Simpson Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2004 3:40 PM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:29658] NASA Cassini The Cassini mission appears to be metric first. http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/index.cfm However, I discovered that David Seal appears to be using 'kph' in his software: http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/present-position.cfm
