*Did Metric Help the Russians in the Space Race?*
*by Stan Jakuba* History suggests that Russian use of the metric system helped their space program outpace the U.S. in the early days of the space race. The Russians, starting with Sputnik, collected all the space travel world records in those early years, and gave up on the moon landing more for political than technical reasons. The space program started in both nations after World War II, when both sides “imported” then current space technology from the Germans. The “import” consisted of the documentation and hardware for the V2 rockets that terrorized London and, after the allied invasion, Antwerp. With the hardware and documentation, each nation “retained” a group of German scientists, engineers and technicians that worked on that war project. It is usually not recognized that the Russians had their own "von Braun" and coworkers, just as the U.S. did. These “Russian” Germans, such as Helmut Grottrup, are so little known because they did not have the NASA PR machine behind them as von Braun did. The Russian government kept secret the names of their own engineers, let alone giving credit to the non-Russians. In any case, the “Russian” Germans must have been a formidable group of scientists and engineers, considering that they reaped all the space race records with the Russian backward technology and without the equivalent of the McMaster-Carr catalog we had in the U.S.; they made most of even standard hardware themselves, as needed. Coming back to the metric system, von Braun’s group used the MKS system (which later became MKSA and eventually SI in 1960 as we know). Relocated to the U.S. they continued working in that system, and U.S. engineers then converted the metric documentation, such as drawings and calculation results, to the U.S. conventions. The “Russian” group likewise continued working the same way they had in Germany. But here the German and USSR engineers spoke the same measurement language that was used by all engineers in the metric world throughout most of the 20th century. Thus the Russians did not need to employ staff to convert as we did, and did not experience delays and wasted money due to mistakes associated with working in two measuring systems. Their work progressed faster and cheaper simply because everybody was drawing, calculating, machining, assembling, etc. metrically. For example, when the German detail drawings hit the manufacturing floor in Russia, the lathe, milling, grinding, etc. operators could start cutting metal immediately, without even knowing the German language. They knew the language of engineering drafting, which by that time was very much the same throughout European nations. In fact, the Russians built about twenty V2s for testing right away. It might be interesting to put that situation into perspective with our war effort in building some English-designed hardware, such as the famous Rolls-Royce Merlin airplane engine. All the drawings, despite of using inches and the English language, had to be redrawn for American factories to make parts here. In technical literature, the spoken language is not as important as the drafting language, and the European (nowadays ISO) language spans those, and also unifies national standards with its drafting symbols and various standardized design features. The importance of a common engineering language can perhaps be best illustrated by the statement I heard at a fasteners conference, that “if threaded fastener standards were harmonized globally, World War II might have been over two years earlier.” Sadly, the obvious, long-term advantage of the metric system is still debated in the U.S. today. How many other races have we been losing without realizing it? To this day, the first stage of NASA rockets, including the Space Shuttle one, have been designed and built in Russia for us. Published in Metric Today a few decades ago. On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 8:48 PM John Nichols <[email protected]> wrote: > According to my Russian supervisor they are good at listening at walls. > > > > But he is biased. But you are correct. > > > > John > > > > *From:* USMA <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Peter > Goodyear > *Sent:* Wednesday, 8 July 2020 7:29 PM > *To:* USMA List Server <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [USMA 1474] Re: Metric to the Moon > > > > Hi, everyone, > > > > You could also respond that the Russians: > > - Put the first satellite in orbit, > - Put the first man in orbit, > - The first woman in orbit, > - Made the first spacewalk, > - Operated the first extra-terrestrial rover, > - Landed the only two probes on Venus, > - Took the first pictures of the far side of the moon, and probably a > few other firsts, too. > > And they used the metric system exclusively, to design, construct, and > operate their spacecraft. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > Peter Goodyear, > > Melbourne, Australia > e-mail: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > > > > On 9 Jul 2020, at 10:02, [email protected] wrote: > > > > That's not a real argument though and more of a "poke in the eye with a > stick" sort of meme. It means nothing. The pyramids weren't built in the > metric system either. > > > > The Apollo missions were done in ifp because that's what they used at the > time. That was also 50 years ago. Let the snarky memes pass you by. I > agree, it's sort of a funny statement, but it really means nothing to the > actual argument. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [USMA 1472] Metric to the Moon > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, July 08, 2020 4:48 pm > To: USMA List Server <[email protected]> > > Don-- It seems that on some of the "social media" boards these days, a big > argument against the metric system is the (mis)statement that the U.S. got > to the moon not using the metric system. If I recall some of the > discussion here and in "Metric Today," the metric system was in fact used, > at least in part. > > Moreover, all of the space activities since then (space station, > interplanetary probes, etc.) have been essentially all metric. > > I'm thinking that it would be useful to have information to debunk this > argument collected as one of the red bullet points on the USMA's home page > (perhaps under "Why Use the Metric System"). I think I recall an article > in "Metric Today" on this topic. Perhaps it could be lifted for this > purpose and used as an easy response when someone raises the issue. > --Martin Morrison > _______________________________________________ > USMA mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma > <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Flists.colostate.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fusma__%3B!!KwNVnqRv!TpimtgEZvDBYlDv7y_q0pQzTITZb_iSPRLtgdPt5wfHAiSHa3tNVHXPU1AX8dxr9-xQ%24&data=02%7C01%7Cusma%40lists.colostate.edu%7Ceddffa2a1c9c45aeceff08d823fe864e%7Cafb58802ff7a4bb1ab21367ff2ecfc8b%7C0%7C0%7C637298923372651524&sdata=UFv%2Bmx2xTxKWEXP7jNeaVYuqSK00Qtj85G6hQEQHTt8%3D&reserved=0> > > _______________________________________________ > USMA mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma > > > _______________________________________________ > USMA mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma >
_______________________________________________ USMA mailing list [email protected] https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma
