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.
  • 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
                    • L Lost User

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

                      A Offline
                      A Offline
                      alex barylski
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #43

                      Hahaha....thats hilarious...I'm changing my signature over at another forum to this statement :D

                      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