John (Steele),
The word "otherwise" excludes equality (symbol "="), making "foreign" not equal 
to "otherwise objectionable influence"; as is the denial of guidance from NIST 
special Publication 811 by some other citizens of the USA.  I agree with your 
opinion that NASA should use the "meter" spelling, but NIST and NASA already 
use the meter spelling except NASA-Houston and some of its contractors who use 
"foot" as the unit of distance!
Gene.
  

---- Original message ----
>Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 10:16:22 -0700 (PDT)
>From: "John M. Steele" <[email protected]>  
>Subject: [USMA:50114] Re: Another NASA use of Ye Olde English units  
>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
>
>   I'm not convinced foreign = objectionable; however I 
>   agree with Gene that NASA should use the "meter"     
>   spelling.  The US government (through NIST and the   
>   Government Printing Office) officially recognizes    
>   meter as preferred over metre.  It is extremely      
>   confusing to the citizenry if the government can't   
>   stick to the government recommendation.  I can only  
>   see allowing each agency free choice on this as      
>   further confusing Americans and delaying, not        
>   helping, metrication.                                
>                                                        
>   --- On Sat, 3/19/11, [email protected]            
>   <[email protected]> wrote:                        
>                                                        
>     From: [email protected] <[email protected]>  
>     Subject: [USMA:50113] Re: Another NASA use of Ye   
>     Olde English units                                 
>     To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> 
>     Date: Saturday, March 19, 2011, 11:38 AM           
>                                                        
>     As a citizen of the USA, born in Pennsylvania, I   
>     consider the misspelling of meter as coming from a 
>     "foreign" source or otherwise objectionable        
>     influence.                                         
>     EAM                                                
>                                                        
>     ---- Original message ----                         
>     >Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 07:42:13 -0400             
>     >From: "Kilopascal" <[email protected]>           
>     >Subject: [USMA:50103] Re: Another NASA use of Ye  
>     Olde English units                                 
>     >To: <[email protected]>, "U.S. Metric Association" 
>     <[email protected]>                               
>     >                                                  
>     >   Remek & Bill,                                  
>     >                                                  
>     >   I highly doubt that if someone sees the word   
>     >   kilometre they would think it is coming from   
>     outside                                            
>     >   the US.  You are attributing to much           
>     intelligence                                       
>     >   to Americans, especially reporters and         
>     editors.                                           
>     >   They would simply think it is a spelling       
>     error.  So,                                        
>     >   don't make more out of it than what it is or   
>     else                                               
>     >   you will start another useless thread on       
>     spelling.                                          
>     >                                                  
>     >   If Bill signed his message to them as being a  
>     US                                                 
>     >   Metric Association member he will probably be  
>     >   ignored as harbouring a bias against things    
>     >   American.   That would stick out more in their 
>     mind                                               
>     >   than the spelling of a word.                   
>     >                                                  
>     >   Bill said:                                     
>     >                                                  
>     >   > What's wrong with:                           
>     >   > ... slowing the spacecraft by 3104 km/h ...  
>     The                                                
>     >   rendezvous took place about 154 million        
>     kilometres                                         
>     >   from Earth  ... through its                    
>     7.9-billion-kilometre                              
>     >   journey.                                       
>     >   >                                              
>     >   > or even simpler                              
>     >   >                                              
>     >   > ... slowing the spacecraft by 3.104 Mm/h ... 
>     The                                                
>     >   rendezvous took place about 154 Gm from        
>     Earth.   ...                                       
>     >   through its 7.9-Tm journey.                    
>     >   I don't understand why the spacecraft speed    
>     has to                                             
>     >   be 3104 instead of 3100 km/h.  The extra 4     
>     km/h is                                            
>     >   just noise.   The speed could even have been   
>     stated                                             
>     >   as 860 km/s.  I too would prefer to see 154 Gm 
>     from                                               
>     >   earth and either a 7.9 Tm or 8.0 Tm journey,   
>     as I                                               
>     >   loathe a mixture of numbers and words.  That   
>     >   practice is a hang-over from USC/imperial as   
>     neither                                            
>     >   hodge-podge has an effective means of handling 
>     large                                              
>     >   and small numbers.  It would look silly in USC 
>     to                                                 
>     >   write of a 4 900 000 000 mile journey, so      
>     zeros are                                          
>     >   omitted by inserting words like million,       
>     milliard,                                          
>     >   billion, billiard, etc.  In SI we have         
>     prefixes to                                        
>     >   replace those words.  We need to use them and  
>     make                                               
>     >   ourselves comfortable seeing them in print.    
>     >                                                  
>     >   Most intelligent people are use to the         
>     prefixes                                           
>     >   mega, giga, tera, etc in the description of    
>     memory                                             
>     >   and hard drive space.  So NASA can not claim   
>     that                                               
>     >   these prefixes are unknown to the readers.     
>     They may                                           
>     >   be unknown to the reporter and editor, but any 
>     one                                                
>     >   interested enough in space travel would be     
>     >   intelligent enough to understand the prefixes. 
>     >   Those who don't understand the prefixes most   
>     likely                                             
>     >   wouldn't understand much else in the article   
>     and                                                
>     >   wouldn't even bother to read it or even be     
>     bothered                                           
>     >   with it.                                       
>     >                                                  
>     >                                                  
>     >                                                  
>     >[USMA:50103] Re: Another NASA use of Ye Olde      
>     English units                                      
>     >                                                  
>     >   Remek Kocz                                     
>     >   Fri, 18 Mar 2011 19:31:20 -0700                
>     >                                                  
>     > I hate to stir up the spelling discussion again, 
>     but sending comments to                            
>     > NASA using non-US-English spellings of the units 
>     makes us look like people                          
>     > from outside the US having a beef with the       
>     agency's presentation.  The place                  
>     > is already intransigent, let's not give them any 
>     more ammunition to say "no                         
>     > metric for us."                                  
>     >                                                  
>     > Remek                                            
>     >                                                  
>     > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Bill Hooper     
>     <[email protected]> wrote:                    
>     >                                                  
>     > > Another case of resistance to metric units     
>     from NASA.                                         
>     > > Below is my reply including the quotes from    
>     NASA's press release to which I                    
>     > > was referring.                                 
>     > >                                                
>     > > Bill Hooper                                    
>     > > Member, US Metric Association                  
>     > > www.metric.org                                 
>     > >                                                
>     > > ========================                       
>     > >                                                
>     > > Would it kill you to let us know what those    
>     figures are in metric in                           
>     > > addition to (or preferably instead of) King    
>     George's Olde English measures?                    
>     > >                                                
>     > > You [NASA] wrote, in RELEASE : 11-079 - NASA'S 
>     MESSENGER Spacecraft Begins                        
>     > > Historic Orbit Around Mercury                  
>     > >                                                
>     > > ... slowing the spacecraft by 1,929 miles per  
>     hour ... The rendezvous took                       
>     > > place about 96 million miles from Earth.       
>     > > ... through its 4.9-billion-mile journey.      
>     > >                                                
>     > >                                                
>     > >                                                
>     > > What's wrong with:                             
>     > > ... slowing the spacecraft by 3104 km/h ...    
>     The rendezvous took place about                    
>     > > 154 million kilometres from Earth.             
>     > > ... through its 7.9-billion-kilometre journey. 
>     > >                                                
>     > > or even simpler                                
>     > >                                                
>     > > ... slowing the spacecraft by 3.104 Mm/h ...   
>     The rendezvous took place                          
>     > > about 154 Gm from Earth.                       
>     > > ... through its 7.9-Tm journey.                
>     > >                                                
>     > > where Mm = megametres (1 Mm = 1000 km)         
>     > > and Gm = gigametres (1 Gm = 1 000 Mm)          
>     > > and Tm = terrametres (1 Tm = 1000 Gm)          
>     > >                                                
>     > >                                                
>     > >                                                
>     >                                                  
>     >                                                  

Reply via email to