NASA-Houston was the directing center for the Constellation program, not JPL.  

---- Original message ----
>Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 13:19:06 -0400
>From: "Kilopascal" <[email protected]>  
>Subject: Re: [USMA:50101] NASA screws up dual labelling  
>To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, "U.S. Metric 
>Association" <[email protected]>
>...    
>   Who were the people behind the Constellation fiasco
>   that was canceled? Was that Houston or JPL?
>    
>     
>
>   --------------------------------------------------
>   From: <[email protected]>
>   Sent: Saturday, 2011-03-19 11:32
>   To: "Kilopascal" <[email protected]>;
>   <[email protected]>; "U.S. Metric Association"
>   <[email protected]>
>   Subject: Re: [USMA:50101] NASA screws up dual
>   labelling
>
>   > Please don't confuse NASA-Houston and NASA public
>   information releases (mostly non-SI) with NASA-JPL
>   (mostly SI in design and operations internally)!
>   >
>   > ---- Original message ----
>   >>Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 07:10:52 -0400
>   >>From: "Kilopascal" <[email protected]> 
>   >>Subject: [USMA:50101] NASA screws up dual
>   labelling 
>   >>To: <[email protected]>, "U.S. Metric
>   Association" <[email protected]>
>   >>
>   >>   It is crap like this comming out of NASA that
>   is the
>   >>   main reason they are in serious trouble and
>   >>   struggling to survive.   The best thing to do
>   is to
>   >>   pressure your Congressman to stop funding NASA
>   and
>   >>   instead fund those private space industries
>   (the
>   >>   ones that use metric in their internal designs)
>   and
>   >>   hopefully with NASA gone so will go their
>   >>   anti-metric pollution.
>   >>
>   >>        [USMA:50101] NASA screws up dual labelling
>   >>
>   >>   Bill Hooper
>   >>   Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:31:57 -0700
>   >>
>   >> A recent announcement from NASA botches an
>   attempt to show a distance in
>   >> kilometres and miles, then goes on to give other
>   data in miles only. Below, for
>   >> your interest, is an excerpt from the
>   announcement followed by my criticism and
>   >> analysis of the situation, which I sent to NASA.
>   >>
>   >>
>   >> Bill Hooper
>   >> Member, US Metric Association
>   >> www.metric.org
>   >>
>   >>
>   >> ==============================================
>   >> On  Mar 18 , at 12:33 AM, NASA News Services
>   wrote:
>   >>
>   >> > Celebrating Mercury Orbit
>   >> > Wed, 16 Mar 2011 23:00:00 -0500
>   >> >
>   >> > ... The orbit insertion will place the
>   spacecraft into a 12-hour orbit about
>   >> > Mercury with a 200 124 mile (STET) minimum
>   altitude. MESSENGER will be 28.67
>   >> > million miles from the sun and 96.35 million
>   miles from Earth. Credit:
>   >> > NASA/Paul E. Alers
>   >> >
>   >>
>   >> There are two problems with your report the in
>   Messenger spacecraft's orbit
>   >> around Mercury:
>   >>
>   >> (1) It appears that you meant to write "200 km /
>   124 miles" but you neglected
>   >> to enter the kilometres symbol after "200" Also,
>   there was no separator between
>   >> the two numbers to indicate that it was "one or
>   the other".
>   >>
>   >> Therefore, it appears that you have announced
>   that the minimum altitude was
>   >> "two hundred thousand, one hundred and
>   twentya**four miles" (200,124 miles)!
>   >> Although Americans generally write that with the
>   comma, many people use a space
>   >> instead of a comma (200 124 miles), and most
>   people recognize the space as
>   >> being just a simple separator in a SINGLE, long
>   number.
>   >>
>   >> and
>   >>
>   >> (2) While we are on the subject of units: Why is
>   it so hard to tell us the
>   >> distance to the sun and the distance to the earth
>   in kilometres in addition to
>   >> (or, better yet, in place of) the mile figure?
>   The distance to sun and earth,
>   >> respectively, can easily be written "46.13
>   million km" and "155.0 million km".
>   >> Or one could take advantage of the simplicity of
>   the SI metric system and
>   >> report it as "46.13 Gm" and "155.0 Gm" (The
>   symbol "Gm" stands for gigametres,
>   >> where a gigmetre is one million kilometres.)
>   >>
>   >> While I admit that there are many people "out
>   there" who are not sufficiently
>   >> familiar with metric to understand what kilometre
>   distance are (or megametre or
>   >> gigametre distances), it is also true that there
>   ALSO are many people "out
>   >> there" who DO understand (and prefer) the
>   simplicity of the SI system. You owe
>   >> it to those people, too, to express your data in
>   ways that they understand and
>   >> prefer.
>   >
>   >
>   > -----
>   > No virus found in this message.
>   > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>   > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1498/3516 -
>   Release Date: 03/19/11
>   >

Reply via email to