NASA's Betrayal: Going Metric

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Nothing is totally efficient, both systems have coexisted in the US for some time now. General population uses standard, companies or professions with international business use both. Also, I believe I repeatedly said that SI is easier to use and understand. However the reason why I see a change (now) unnecessary is because our current systems has worked so far, if it isn't broke...

[edit on 9-1-2007 by WestPoint23]

Theres obviously a reason they feel they can be more efficient by doing it this way. Im sure people were whining in the UK in 1972 when we switched over from using a moronic system of pounds, shillings and pence (look it up and tell me it makes sense or youd prefer that system to the current ones) to what we have now. When the US adopts the metric units, that generation will the the imperial system is stupid just as current generations think the imperial system is dumb.

IMO the US wont adopt metric, not in the near or foreseeable future that is. Such a change requires a big commitment and one that would not be easy to fulfill. I see no change in the status quo, no matter how stupid standard seems it;s worked fine so far.

The big tool makers in the US are the reason why we are not using the metric system in the US. Think about how many more tools your mechanic has to buy because some cars are metric and some are not. I have in my tool box two sets of wrenches, soccets and allen wrenches. Sears, Snap On, Stanley and others are making double the money since we need to buy twice as many tools to get jobs done.

Actually, I heard on Car Talk today that US cars are all metric now. And only one thing on them (maybe two) is still in inches. Can you guess what that is?

But why is this? Because all the parts are made overseas and only assembled in the US?

Originally posted by psyopswatcher
Actually, I heard on Car Talk today that US cars are all metric now.

What do you mean? All the cars that I've driven in the US still measure and label things in standard.

I think that all automobiles are built using metric. It makes it much easier to source parts which keeps costs down. With construction plants all over the world, it just makes sense for US automobile manufacturers to use metric so they don't have to design everything twice. Of course they'll leave you your imperial odometer/speedometer in the US, but most everything else in them is metric - except for the tires.

That's why Dodge Rams have 5.7L & 6.1L Hemi's instead of naming them the old way, e.g. the 426 Hemi.

[edit on 14-1-2007 by Duzey]

except for the tires.

Bingo, Duzey. You got it.

The only other thing (that they quibbled over) were windshield wiper blades still sold in inches.

WestPoint, all the nuts and bolts are metric now. Except the wheels still measured in inches. Probably some deal struck with the tire companies (Bridgestone, Firestone, etc) was their guess. So yes, mechanics have had to keep double sets of tools for some time now.

Does this go for new American cars sold overseas, are their tires are in inches also?

Anyone chance to see?

Tires are a mix of metric and imperial.

If you buy a tire that is 215/75R15, it breaks down like this:

215 = sidewall to sidewall diameter in millimeters
75 = aspect ratio
R = radial
15 = rim size in inches

There are some metric wheels/tires called TRX; my Peugeot had them. They are harder to find and more expensive. American car makers have used them in the past, some older Mustangs had them.

I have no idea why it is like this. There may be a few countries that are different, but they are measured like this most everywhere.

I had forgotten about wipers, they are sold in inches in Canada too.

[edit on 15-1-2007 by Duzey]

Originally posted by psyopswatcher
Actually, I heard on Car Talk today that US cars are all metric now. And only one thing on them (maybe two) is still in inches. Can you guess what that is?

But why is this? Because all the parts are made overseas and only assembled in the US?

This is true, both of my 1997 Ford vehicles have metric fasteners, come to think of it my 91 jeep was metric also. You also don't need both metric and standard tools either, you can use metric tools on standard sizes bolts and vice versa. You just need to know which size converts to the other system..

I wish we would switch to the metric system, I've dealt with it at work (I work construction and the plans were in metric) a few times and after a couple days of getting used to it, I found it to be easier.

Originally posted by Nygdan
FWIW, the metric system really isn't 'superior'. Its more consistent internally, than the usual non-metric alternatrives

And being internally consistent is what makes it superior. A system will always be more efficient if it is "based on itself", ie, that it has a large amount of internal congruency, and that it can be scaled easily. This applies to basically anything, from modular construction to Object-Oriented Programming. It it easier to use if it makes sense, and consistency is always the easiest way to reduce a learning curve. Indeed, it's consistency that we're debating here. If the world used a consistent measuring system, we'd have less problems.

But the system itself is just an arbitrary system.

Any system is, at its core, arbitrary. Everything has to start out somewhere, and its up to the creator of the system to choose a sound starting point. Metric's foundation is far more concrete than the imperial system's, in that it is at least based on a constant unit, not something that varies from person to person. Since it's standardization into SI, the metre now has a very exact definition, and the vast majority of metric stems from that in a predictable, usable, logical manner.

But there is no such thing. They simply ended up substituting one base, the size of the earth (which the meter is calculated from), for another (like, the length of the average forearm for cubits).

The metre is based on the speed of light now, not on the cirumference of the planet. Though its exact measure is somewhat arbitrary, it was chosen as it was the closest to the current metre at the time.

True, the metric system is more internally consistent, but we could also make up any internally consisten system. Heck, we could have one based on, say, an inch. And then just have 'deca-inches' deci-inches, centi-inches, kilo-inches, etc.

And the metric system is based on multiples of ten, but we could've just as easily have used six fold mutliples.

Every human system is just "made up", you're right. It's all arbitrary. Any base counting method could be used, base 10, base 16, base 347, whatever. The point is that metric is base 10, and base 10 is extremely easy to use as it mirrors our own decimal counting system. That means no confusion, that means easy translation. How many centimetres in a metre? 100. How many millimetres? 1000. How many inches in a yard? 36? How many feet in a mile? 5280? Not only is it more difficult to remember, it's harder to convert and work with. Base 10 is the way to go.

Infact, we still don't say that a circle is divided up into 10 degrees, or a hundred degrees, its divided up into 360 degrees. We could just as easily divide it into a hundred parts and say 'one of those is a degree'. And say that our days are 10 'hours' long, and a week is 10 days, and a month is a sensible number of weeks, and there is only 10 months, all of the same length, etc.

Circles are still split into 360 degrees because of geometric reasons. There are a lot of relationships involved that center strongly on multiples of 3 and 6, and they are easier to work with using those numbers. As far as the metric week and year goes, yes, there were plans for that and a metric clock as well, complete with 10 hour cycles. Those were scrapped as they were too invasive. Our measurements of time long predate our measurements of distance and weight. Habits that ancient are almost impossible to unlearn.

Indeed, after the revolution, the French, who still maintain THE official meter, the one by which all other meters are measured and defined (its in paris i beleive), re-organized their calender to a more 'rational' system, where the months were named the equivalent of "Spring" "Hot Time" "Snowy Time" etc (or some such).

Actually, the french maintain the old metre, the pre-light remeasure version. The current version is maintained in part by an international body, the General Conference on Weights and Measures (though they do meet in France). As far as the simplified calendar goes, this is the first I've heard of it. As I stated before, I know there was an attempt at a 10 month calendar, though it was quelled rather quickly.

[edit on 16/1/2007 by Thousand]

True, the metric system is more internally consistent, but we could also make up any internally consisten system. Heck, we could have one based on, say, an inch. And then just have 'deca-inches' deci-inches, centi-inches, kilo-inches, etc.

As long as say 1000(or whatever) deca-inches equals 1 deci-inch, etc. That is why the Metric system is superior. It makes more sense and takes less effort calculate. Just imagine trying to do a logarithmic table in Imperial... it makes my head hurt just thinking about attempting such a thing.

I wouldn't mind a Metric Imperial system as I grew up learning BOTH systems. You're right when you say that what the measurements are based off of are completely arbitrary, but it's all in how we organize those measurements that are not completely arbitrary.

[edit on 16-1-2007 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by iori_komei
And I still think it's actually funny that there would'nt have been an
accident had NASA actually been using the American Imperial system.

As I've been asked a few times why I dislike the Metric system, I
suppose I should answer.

I generalized, I don't dislike all of it, but I do dislike many parts.
For example, in Metric I am 182.9 cm in height, yet in the American
Imperial system I am only 6'0, now in the metric system, it's a very
large number, and to me 6 feet is more imaginable, because it's not
a huge number.

So why dont you use stone and pounds and call yourself 14 stone 3 pounds instead of 194 pounds? (They are not equal but Im not going to spend the time looking it up, it also adds weight to how ridiculous the system is)

Originally posted by Flyer
So why dont you use stone and pounds and call yourself 14 stone 3 pounds instead of 194 pounds? (They are not equal but Im not going to spend the time looking it up, it also adds weight to how ridiculous the system is)

Because no one in the United States used stones, we use pounds
for measurements of weight below 2,000lbs.

And a stone is equal to 14lbs, I deal with measurements in stones
as well as pounds.


Using pounds is how I was taught, and is the system I prefer
using, though I could learn to use kilograms, but there's no reason to.

Originally posted by iori_komei

When NASA returns astronauts to the Moon, the mission will be measured kilometers, not miles.
The agency has decided to use metric units for all operations on the lunar surface, according to a statement released today.

The change will standardize parts and tools. It means Russian wrenches could be used to fix an air leak in a U.S.-built habitat. It will also make communications easier, such as when determining how far to send a rover for a science project.

NASA has ostensibly used the metric system since about 1990, the statement said, but English units are still employed on some missions, and a few projects use both. NASA uses both English and metric aboard the International Space Station.

The decision comes after a series of meetings between NASA and 13 other space agencies around the world, where metric measurements rule.


SOURCE:
Space.com

I am, as can be seen in the title, not a fan of this change.

I do see how it's useful, but NASA is an a\American agency,
and should therefore use the American measuring system.

Actually, I don't mind them using metric for tool size, when
they're working one International projects, but when it's a
purely American project, they should use the American
system.

Honestly, I hate metric, not only does most of it make little
sense to me, but I've never been good at conversions.


Comments, Opinions?

Because many our measurements are arbitrary and do not correlate well with scientific measurements. Every physics class across the nation uses the metric system and has for a long while it makes sense mathmatically. One of our rovers that crashed into mars (i forget which one early 90's) crashed because of a failed unit conversion of miles to km. I think its a good idea for tools and scientific measurements but I believe we will still regard things in terms of miles.

Originally posted by iori_komei

When NASA returns astronauts to the Moon, the mission will be measured kilometers, not miles.
The agency has decided to use metric units for all operations on the lunar surface, according to a statement released today.

I certainly hope they've revamped their conversion process.
Didn't we lose a Mars Mission due to inaccurate processing of this process of conversion?

I seem to recall someone left of a unit, and it caused a mis-hap.

(They had a hard time with the * key, so they left it out).

I thought the point of staying with the Imperial system for astronomical purposes was that it is a system based on 12, not 10. It is my understanding that the mathematic calculations are more accurate and easier to calculate in things pertaining to astronomy (and probably ONLY astronomy) using a base 12, rather than base 10 system.

Astronomy is not my forte and I suck at math in every country but I thought it had to do with 360 degree circles, rotations, orbits, ROUND things having more precise calculations on a base 12 system. Maybe our resident math/physics expert could enlighten....?

Not only circles, spheres and the like. But, also time itself is a modulus occurence of base 12.

Timing is somewhat important when traveling long distances. The calculations necessary to go to the moon require a lot of "bouncing around" orbital pulls. And these manuevers require some time. And a set expenditure of weighted fuel.

I hope they understand that onboard clocks during orbital flight often get slammed with particles and get thrown of by days. And whomever is at the helm might not be up to par on conversions, back into the amount of "timed flight".

so why is NASA changing to a system of base 10 if THEIR specific needs are for a base 12 system? seems kinda silly to lose a rover because of a conversion problem. if navigating through space requires a base 12 system for accuracy then so be it. just because metric is "easier" for everyone else....everyone else is not traveling through space and spending billions of dollars to do it. space travel/exploration is too important to put on the auction block of public opinion/preference of the masses.

My guess for the conversion is inter-cooperability. I don't want this, though, because others' space-programs are severely hampered.

Most likely, it is motivated by the trade of information gathered.

The U.S. has been farting around with a changeover to the metric system for some 50 or so years now and still has not completed the change. The primary reason being resistance from the American public. Just do it and get it over with. Within a generation of teaching it in school (at all levels) the problem will be completely behind us.