Dear Stan,
Congratulations on this posting. What you say is clear and, above all,
based on your real experiences. This latter is important as so much of
the so-called metric debate consists of pure conjecture unsupported by
any factual insights from the resisters and retardees who are opposed
to those few of us who base their metrication views on real life
experience.
You might like to consider re-posting your thoughts from this email at
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/06/nasa_finds_the.html
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
Author of the forthcoming book, Metrication Leaders Guide.
PO Box 305 Belmont 3216,
Geelong, Australia
Phone: 61 3 5241 2008
Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has
helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the
modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they
now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for
their businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many
different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial
and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA.
Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST,
and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com
for more metrication information, contact Pat at [email protected]
or to get the free 'Metrication matters' newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter
to subscribe.
On 2009/06/09, at 12:51 AM, Stan Jakuba wrote:
This is a rebuttal of someone's writing that it was "sensible" for
NASA to back-pedal from metric (again!) considering the Space
Shuttle documentation. Sorry for commenting this late.
There is no justification for NASA not being metric other than the
usual - politics. NASA has no better justification for dragging its
feet than private companies. Besides, NASA manufactures very little
- I had seen their machine shops; it procures almost all outside.
NASA is mostly test and assembly areas when it comes to hardware.
(Software needs no mentioning.)
Essentially all manufacturing and R&D companies that I consulted
with on metrication face the same or worse problems than NASA (going
out of business, law suits immune with Gov't). Many have a product
and equipment that has to be maintained for some years, often
incomparably longer than NASA's. For example, Otis Elevator company
still maintains and refurbishes elevators installed 120 years ago.
It took us about a year to prepare all the documentation for going
metric at Otis, and another two years to provide the training on as
needed basis until the "critical mass" was reached. All newly
designed Otis products have been metric from that point on; no
change to the old ones. So it was with a hundred companies that make
products lasting far longer than NASA's research toys. Only at gov't
establishments did I see metrication deteriorating to converting
tens of thousand drawings - because some bureaucrat thought it
necessary.
The typical companies that I train establish a policy, signed by the
CEO, saying that from a certain point on all newly designed products
will be metric. I train everybody to learn what it means and make
them bilingual, that is, enable them working equally comfortable in
SI as in I-P. No converting. That enables switching mentally from
old documentation (I-P) to the new one (metric) several times a day
for as many years as needed. People get the feel for the reference
numbers in both systems (Mars orbiter - ft and m !). That feel is
soooo important. The same "bilingual" training was provided at NASA
until it retreated as said previously.
NASA is no different from most businesses as to the documentation.
The Space Shuttle documentation, as any other, is not up kept
properly; the last moment changes are hand sketched with the notion
that after the lift-off, or whatever deadline, a proper update will
be entered. It is often not done. Human nature. Just like anywhere
else. Astronauts are trained to do a repair two or three different
ways because nobody knows for sure, which version is it that's
orbiting up there.
I had never met any serious resistance among NASA people to metric
at any level - from the top brass to "rocket scientists" to brochure
printers. Any mild resistance usually disappeared before the
training was over.
Both mentally and materially, NASA could have been metric (almost
was in the 80s) far easier than most of my big companies clients.
R&D outfits generally have it easiest. Unless they go back and
forth, back and forth, ...
Stan Jakuba
