Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. NASA: It would cost $370 million to convert to metric

NASA: It would cost $370 million to convert to metric

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
csharpannouncement
43 Posts 29 Posters 3 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • M Mustafa Ismail Mustafa

    Newtons and "pounds of thrust" are measurements of force. Technically, because a Newton is a measurement of force, you can use any weight measurement to convey the amount in weigh and indeed, 1N = 0.102kg Unless you're being sarcastic...

    If the post was helpful, please vote, eh! Current activities: Book: Devils by Fyodor Dostoyevsky Project: Hospital Automation, final stage Learning: Image analysis, LINQ Now and forever, defiant to the end. What is Multiple Sclerosis[^]?

    L Offline
    L Offline
    Lost User
    wrote on last edited by
    #23

    Me? Sarcastic? I'd simply argue that Kilograms are more widely used than Newtons (when comparing Pounds) and (here I may be wrong) I feel the UOM for Pounds of Thrust is Pounds of thrust, and not Pounds. Also, they were in opposite orders (as someone pointed out above) Sarcastic? No. Pedantic? welll......

    ___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

    F 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • K Kant

      The shuttles that NASA uses to fly to space currently use measurements in the form of pounds and feet as opposed to the more widely adopted meters and newtons. The upcoming shuttle replacement will continue to use the imperial measurement system because it would cost NASA $370 million dollars to convert to the "'International System' of units". NASA: It would cost $370 million to convert to metric[^] :wtf: :omg: Read the comments in that post.

      రవికాంత్

      R Offline
      R Offline
      RobertBarnes
      wrote on last edited by
      #24

      What velocity do you need to reach to escape Earth's orbit? In units of furlongs per fortnight of course. :) Robert

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • L Lost User

        Kant wrote:

        pounds and feet as opposed to the more widely adopted meters and newtons.

        Shouldn't that be "the more widely adopted kilograms and meters"?

        ___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

        E Offline
        E Offline
        Envergure
        wrote on last edited by
        #25

        No. Pounds and Newtons are both units of force, but a kilogram is a unit of mass. The Imperial unit of mass is called a "slug". There's also a "pound-mass" (the mass that weighs one pound) but it's seldom used.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • K Kant

          The shuttles that NASA uses to fly to space currently use measurements in the form of pounds and feet as opposed to the more widely adopted meters and newtons. The upcoming shuttle replacement will continue to use the imperial measurement system because it would cost NASA $370 million dollars to convert to the "'International System' of units". NASA: It would cost $370 million to convert to metric[^] :wtf: :omg: Read the comments in that post.

          రవికాంత్

          M Offline
          M Offline
          Mark_Wallace
          wrote on last edited by
          #26

          What's $370M in pounds, shillings, and pence?

          I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • J Joe Woodbury

            Never understood why anyone cares. As long as you aren't mixing systems, either one works. "Oh, it's easier to convert..." Yeah, scientists are always doing complex calculations and conversions in their heads. Besides, knowing bureaucracies, some department somewhere wouldn't convert and the state of Florida would explode.

            Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke

            D Offline
            D Offline
            Dan Neely
            wrote on last edited by
            #27

            Joe Woodbury wrote:

            "Oh, it's easier to convert..." Yeah, scientists are always doing complex calculations and conversions in their heads.

            Not full calculations, but shifting the decimal point makes order of magnitude sanity checking far easier.

            It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains. -- Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • T tec goblin

              You just don't get how easier it is to convert. Even volume to weight in metric can be done in our heads, and IS done in our heads for simple things. And of course you're mixing things when you're reading for example an article or collaborate with someone who's not from the States.

              J Offline
              J Offline
              Joe Woodbury
              wrote on last edited by
              #28

              I know exactly how easy it is to convert. We use metric for all designs at my current job. The point is that with CAD and other tools, it really doesn't matter. Metric is not some magical system; it's basis is just as arbitrary as English measurements.

              Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke

              T R 2 Replies Last reply
              0
              • J Joe Woodbury

                I know exactly how easy it is to convert. We use metric for all designs at my current job. The point is that with CAD and other tools, it really doesn't matter. Metric is not some magical system; it's basis is just as arbitrary as English measurements.

                Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke

                T Offline
                T Offline
                tec goblin
                wrote on last edited by
                #29

                It's certainly not magical, but is also less arbitrary. Deciding that all measures use a multiplier of 10 or 1/10, and deciding that the weight of 1 litre of water is 1 kg is arbitrary, but in the end you end up with fewer axioms.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • K Kant

                  The shuttles that NASA uses to fly to space currently use measurements in the form of pounds and feet as opposed to the more widely adopted meters and newtons. The upcoming shuttle replacement will continue to use the imperial measurement system because it would cost NASA $370 million dollars to convert to the "'International System' of units". NASA: It would cost $370 million to convert to metric[^] :wtf: :omg: Read the comments in that post.

                  రవికాంత్

                  J Offline
                  J Offline
                  JMComstock
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #30

                  I believe it would be appropriate to send the bill to the members of congress from the 1970's who refused to convert the nation to the metric system when they had the chance. Instead they passed a bill that said we would "work toward" the metric system. A bill that has done practially nothing.

                  modified on Friday, June 26, 2009 1:20 PM

                  D 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • P Parsley72

                    Joe Woodbury wrote:

                    As long as you aren't mixing systems, either one works.

                    That's kind of the point - the Mars Climate Orbiter crashed because NASA use Imperial and the subcontractor used Metric: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter[^]

                    R Offline
                    R Offline
                    Rick Shaub
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #31

                    Who down-voted this post? That's a very relevent story.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • J JMComstock

                      I believe it would be appropriate to send the bill to the members of congress from the 1970's who refused to convert the nation to the metric system when they had the chance. Instead they passed a bill that said we would "work toward" the metric system. A bill that has done practially nothing.

                      modified on Friday, June 26, 2009 1:20 PM

                      D Offline
                      D Offline
                      Dan Neely
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #32

                      What are you talking about, I can buy pop in a 2 liter bottle instead of by the half gallon. I also have to buy twice as many wrenches and sockets if I want to work on anything mechanical. If that's not progress I don't know what is. :doh:

                      It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains. -- Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • J Joe Woodbury

                        I know exactly how easy it is to convert. We use metric for all designs at my current job. The point is that with CAD and other tools, it really doesn't matter. Metric is not some magical system; it's basis is just as arbitrary as English measurements.

                        Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke

                        R Offline
                        R Offline
                        Rick Shaub
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #33

                        The Imperial system is way more arbitrary. Except for the kilogram, S.I. units are all based on naturally occuring constants: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html[^]

                        J 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • K Kant

                          The shuttles that NASA uses to fly to space currently use measurements in the form of pounds and feet as opposed to the more widely adopted meters and newtons. The upcoming shuttle replacement will continue to use the imperial measurement system because it would cost NASA $370 million dollars to convert to the "'International System' of units". NASA: It would cost $370 million to convert to metric[^] :wtf: :omg: Read the comments in that post.

                          రవికాంత్

                          M Offline
                          M Offline
                          Member 1709723
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #34

                          the probably spent at least US100k for the study to determine what the conversion would cost

                          http://www.icalburner.net

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • R Rick Shaub

                            The Imperial system is way more arbitrary. Except for the kilogram, S.I. units are all based on naturally occuring constants: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html[^]

                            J Offline
                            J Offline
                            Joe Woodbury
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #35

                            Surely you're joking: "The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second." If that's not arbitrary, the word has no meaning. And how that's "naturally occurring" is beyond me.

                            Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • L Lost User

                              Me? Sarcastic? I'd simply argue that Kilograms are more widely used than Newtons (when comparing Pounds) and (here I may be wrong) I feel the UOM for Pounds of Thrust is Pounds of thrust, and not Pounds. Also, they were in opposite orders (as someone pointed out above) Sarcastic? No. Pedantic? welll......

                              ___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

                              F Offline
                              F Offline
                              Fabio Franco
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #36

                              _Maxxx_ wrote:

                              'd simply argue that Kilograms are more widely used than Newtons

                              Kilograms and Newtons have nothing to do with eachother. Kilograms is a unit o "mass", Newton is a unit of "force". You are mistaken if you beleive you weight 70kg. Your mass is 70kg and you weight approximately 686.5N (Newtons), depending where in planet earth you are standing. Mass (as for kilograms) doesn't change depending on your acceleration or position in the universe. The weight does. Astrounauts are almost weightless (Newtons), but they still got the same mass (kg). So saying that kilograms are more widely used than Newtons as kilograms doesn't make sense, as they have different applications. They are used where they apply. IT would make sense comparing the use of kilograms to pounds, or Newtons to Pounds of Thrust. Regards, Fábio

                              modified on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:14 AM

                              O 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • L Lost User

                                The US is converting to the metric system... inch by inch.

                                J Offline
                                J Offline
                                James Lonero
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #37

                                Probably more like millimeter by millimeter (or millimetre).

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • F Fabio Franco

                                  _Maxxx_ wrote:

                                  'd simply argue that Kilograms are more widely used than Newtons

                                  Kilograms and Newtons have nothing to do with eachother. Kilograms is a unit o "mass", Newton is a unit of "force". You are mistaken if you beleive you weight 70kg. Your mass is 70kg and you weight approximately 686.5N (Newtons), depending where in planet earth you are standing. Mass (as for kilograms) doesn't change depending on your acceleration or position in the universe. The weight does. Astrounauts are almost weightless (Newtons), but they still got the same mass (kg). So saying that kilograms are more widely used than Newtons as kilograms doesn't make sense, as they have different applications. They are used where they apply. IT would make sense comparing the use of kilograms to pounds, or Newtons to Pounds of Thrust. Regards, Fábio

                                  modified on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:14 AM

                                  O Offline
                                  O Offline
                                  ormonds
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #38

                                  Ah, that little discussion is exactly why NASA should use metric at any cost. If any orgnisation needs to know the difference between mass and force it is surely them. The difference is intrinsic in mks. Ormond

                                  F 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • J Joe Woodbury

                                    Never understood why anyone cares. As long as you aren't mixing systems, either one works. "Oh, it's easier to convert..." Yeah, scientists are always doing complex calculations and conversions in their heads. Besides, knowing bureaucracies, some department somewhere wouldn't convert and the state of Florida would explode.

                                    Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke

                                    O Offline
                                    O Offline
                                    ormonds
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #39

                                    And that's a reason against?

                                    J 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • H hairy_hats

                                      "Three nations have not officially adopted the International System of Units as their primary or sole system of measurement: Liberia, Myanmar and the United States."

                                      O Offline
                                      O Offline
                                      ormonds
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #40

                                      There is something rather beautifully ironic that the US of A which was so keen to cast off the shackles of imperialism is now the only sizable country using the imperial system. Ormond

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • O ormonds

                                        And that's a reason against?

                                        J Offline
                                        J Offline
                                        Joe Woodbury
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #41

                                        No, just a thought. I'm bemused by people thinking that measurements, words and many other things have intrinsic meaning.

                                        Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • O ormonds

                                          Ah, that little discussion is exactly why NASA should use metric at any cost. If any orgnisation needs to know the difference between mass and force it is surely them. The difference is intrinsic in mks. Ormond

                                          F Offline
                                          F Offline
                                          Fabio Franco
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #42

                                          Agreed!

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups