NASA: It would cost $370 million to convert to metric
-
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
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
-
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
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[^]
-
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
the probably spent at least US100k for the study to determine what the conversion would cost
-
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[^]
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
-
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')
_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
-
Probably more like millimeter by millimeter (or millimetre).
-
_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
-
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
-
"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."
-
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
-
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
Agreed!
-
Hahaha....thats hilarious...I'm changing my signature over at another forum to this statement :D