Do a Google search for NASA JPL and you find more entries than you have time to read about robotic probes of our Solar System.
---- Original message ---- >Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:49:45 -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]> > > So what does JPL design and produce in metric that > you are aware of? Can you give an example? Does > JPL actually do any manufacturing or is all of the > work subbed out? If so, are they like the auto > industry and require the subcontractor to use metric > only? > > Do they hide their metricness from the public and if > so why? Why are they ashamed that they use metric > that they need to hide this fact from the public? > > I'd be curious to know what their policy is. > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, 2011-03-19 14:41 > To: "Kilopascal" <[email protected]>; > <[email protected]>; "U.S. Metric Association" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [USMA:50101] NASA screws up dual > labelling > > > 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 > >> > > > > > > > ----- > > 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 > >
