Going back to the original title of this thread, I have just watched a BBC
program on the last shuttle mission, presented by Kevin Wong, who, although
British, worked for very many years in Nasa as part of the shuttle team, and
was granted unprecedented access to areas and people denied to the media in
general in putting together this program.
It was a very good program, and it was indeed a sad event for all those who
were part of the shuttle prigram, some from its very outset, to see it ending.
Yet, whenever someone who was interviewed used ONLY imperial/USC units in
describing their involvement, I couldn't help thinking that it was indeed a
program that was out of touch with the world - not only in terms of its
measurement units, but also in terms of its incredible complexity and expense.
The immediate future lies in the hands of the Russians with their Soyuz
spacecraft - all metric of course. But no doubt a new US space program will
emerge, likely privately funded, and hopefully this will use only SI.
Surely this is something that the USMA can promote, and be involved in, as an
active program - a program that, at present, doesn't actually exist, but as it
emerges and gathers form and function, the USMA can give solid direction in
terms of what measurement units should be used. An opportunity that must not be
missed.
John F-L
----- Original Message -----
From: Remek Kocz
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 9:20 PM
Subject: [USMA:50908] Re: Apollo 11 - 20 July 1969
I always wondered if aircraft mechanics across the world had a dual set of
tools to accommodate the US-made planes. I guess just as much as the feet and
miles were forced on the world, so were the USC fasteners. Too bad.
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Kilopascal <kilopas...@cox.net> wrote:
I believe that Boeing executives probably are arrogant enough to think that
everyone in the world even if they live in a metric country can function in
USC/imperial and function well. There are some people out there that actually
believe that USC/imperial is intuitive, that is that everyone has a inborn
natural feel for USC/imperial and only use metric because their "oppressive"
governments make them.
I read in a forum that Airbus uses inch based fasteners:
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=114889&page=21
This forum seems to indicate that there are some metric fasteners used in
aircraft assembly, but this person states:
yates (Aerospace) 10 Feb 05 4:20
Drawoh,
Airbus do not use any metric fasteners. They use exclusively
inch threads. As already stated, metric aerospace fasteners are defined in NA
(AIA) specs. in the US or in EN (AECMA) specs in Europe. See www.aecma.org for
a link to qualified manufacturers for EN screws, which will then lead to their
catalogues.
I heard years ago that another reason Airbus used inch based fasteners was
because there was already a standard for their strength, etc. and if Airbus
went to metric fasteners, they would have to spend oodles of money testing a
metric series. This could have possibly delayed the introduction of their
product. Even if they use inch based fasteners, it doesn't cut into their
efficiency. They purchase as is. This is different than having to machine an
inch design in metric or vice-versa and experience what your son encountered.
I don't know where they get them. They may even make them in Germany and
France and are made to metric dimensions even if the numbers are not round. It
is a specialty product for one industry and even if there is an added cost, a
few euros doesn't matter when the planes cost millions.
Of course, Airbus and Boeing are not the only companies making planes.
I've flown on small planes that were made in either Canada (Canadair Regional
Jets or Bombadier) or Brasil (Embraer) A lot of short flight service in the US
uses these planes. I can only assume they are designed and assembled in
metric. Only someone who works on planes can tell us if these companies use
metric or inch based fasteners.
From: John Frewen-Lord
Sent: Saturday, 2011-07-23 16:24
To: Kilopascal
Subject: Re: [USMA:50895] Re: Apollo 11 - 20 July 1969
Indeed. I have said on this list server in the past that much of Boeing's
problems with the 787 were trying to outsource so much USC dimensioned work to
metric countries/companies. My son is a lead engineer and works in an
automotive engineering company in Mississauga, Ontario. Working for the
automotive industry (for GM, Toyota, Honda, etc), everything he does is in
metric. He was project engineer on designing and manufacturing some landing
gear sub-assemblies (third tier) on the 787. He had huge problems in sourcing
USC fasteners (only metric fasteners are easily available in Canada) - to the
point that they had to ship 'boxes of bits' (as he called them) to his client
subcontractor (which I believe was Mitsubishi - his company is Matsui-Matcor
and has Japanese connections).
Just why Boeing didn't foresee this never ceases to amaze me. Most of the
NMC machines are only calibrated in SI. Trying to machine non-SI parts on these
machines must be a nightmare. I know my son said that they never got the
dimensions EXACTLY right - within tolerance, but never spot on.
I noted your comment that Airbus uses USC fasteners - are you sure? Where
do they get them from? The A320 is assembled both in Toulouse, as well as in
Germany (A321, which is the stretched version of the 320), and also in China,
where Airbus have set up a satellite assembly plant. It seems hard to believe
that all these plants are using hard-to-find USC fasteners.
Cheers
John F-L
----- Original Message -----
From: Kilopascal
To: John Frewen-Lord ; U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: [USMA:50895] Re: Apollo 11 - 20 July 1969
I don't expect anyone to agree with me all of the time. But it sometimes
is downright aggravating when those who should be supporting the metric system
fail to do so and refuse to see where the lack of metric is taking us. Did
you see the articles I sent about what the Russians are saying now that the
shuttle fleet is no more and the article about the lost career opportunities
for Americans? I believe that these are all metric related, either fully or
partially. And as I keep saying: America's loss is everyone else's gain.
I believe that as far as planes go, the design and manufacture of Airbus
planes is metric, but the fasteners are USC. It seems it was done so that all
the planes world-wide require the same tools and no accidents will occur do to
a mismatch of similar parts. But, since Airbus designs and produces using
metric calculations and other metric parts transparent to the end user it makes
them more cost efficient in the design stage as well as the procurement of
materials not available in USC, especially in many home markets.
Consider wiring and connectors. Metric standards are common in every
market and replacements can obtained via local distribution whereas non-metric
special components have to be obtained from an American source.
The other most important issue in the design and assembly is that
everyone in the world works in metric and has difficulty understanding USC. If
they had to design and build planes in inches they would not have a good feel
for them and the cost of manufacturing as well as that of mistakes would
increase. We recently saw this in reverse where Boeing tried to save cost on
the dreamliner and outsourced some of the design and some assembly to metric
countries. The metric thinking world had trouble dealing in inches or
millimetres converted from inches and it cost Boeing milliards in cost
over-runs and delays.
Designing and assembling in metric is more efficient, less costly and
conserves rare resources. These costs and efficiencies can be passed on to the
people buying them. Now Paul may be upset that I would wish that Boeing fails
(as long as they continue in their folly of promoting USC, I really hope they
do!) but I see no other way for me to support metrication then support
businesses, even if they are foreign, that produce using SI units.
When it comes to supporting a position such as metrication you either
have to be fully supportive or your efforts will fail. There is no half way.
Those who are lukewarm to metrication (not fully committed) are worse off and
do more damage than those who are either hot (with) or cold (against).
From: John Frewen-Lord
Sent: Saturday, 2011-07-23 12:50
To: Kilopascal
Subject: Re: [USMA:50895] Re: Apollo 11 - 20 July 1969
Just to let you know, kPa, I am with you on this one. I don't of course
always with you now and then, but on the whole I think your approach is the
right one. The dribs and drabs (read 'voluntary') approach will never work -
never has.
At the Paris airshow, Airbus sold nearly 800 planes, vs Boeing's less
than 100, and mostly to India, South America and other 'emerging' nations and
areas. Why would that be? Now mostly of course it is because the A320neo is a
very fuel efficient plane, but it has garnered over 1000 orders, in little more
than 6 months since it was announced. Even Boeing's 787 didn't do that well.
Could it be because these emerging nations are all metric?
Having said that, the A320neo must be a damn good plane, because American
Airlines, once publically swearing allegiance to an all-Boeing fleet, has now
ordered 250 planes - 100 737s, and 150 A320neos. Interesting to see how AA will
cope with having to learn some SI.
Cheers
John F-L
----- Original Message -----
From: Kilopascal
To: trus...@grandecom.net ; U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 1:27 PM
Subject: [USMA:50895] Re: Apollo 11 - 20 July 1969
Paul,
How do you come to such a conclusion?
Yes Paul, I am in opposition to USC & imperial and I'm not ashamed of
it. I am opposed to people, business, government, etc, that hate or refuse to
metricate and continue to waste time, money and resources in the continued
folly of opposing metrication. I blame America's economic decline and
America's decline in general on those who refuse to move forward.
I don't pretend to praise NASA for their waste of money for their USC
follies. If they were metric, they would be cooperating with international and
private companies that use metric instead of trying to go it alone and getting
nowhere fast at our expense. I give high praise to Dr von Braun for having the
intelligence to work in metric behind the scenes.
You should know that metrication will not be achieved with drips and
drops and those who get excited about this don't seem to realize or care that
those drops evaporate quite quickly. Just look at what is happening to soda
bottle sizes in the US. They are reverting to USC.
Look at history and you will see that great changes come by force,
never by waiting for the opposition to see the light.
So I can say to you that if you continue in your ways, you will end up
very frustrated in that not only did metrication never happen in the US, what
little progress was made here and there vanished over time. If you really
believe in something you have to be a bit militant or you might as well not
even bother.
kPa
[USMA:50895] Re: Apollo 11 - 20 July 1969
Paul Trusten
Wed, 20 Jul 2011 22:55:46 -0700
kPa, if you continue your oppositional streak, you may eventually go full
circle and become as anti-metric as that fellow up in Wiscasset, Maine! Put
down your spear and pick up a pruning hook once in a while.
----- Original Message -----
From: Kilopascal
To: trus...@grandecom.net ; U.S. Metric Association
Sent: 2011-07-20 20:14
Subject: [USMA:50891] Apollo 11 - 20 July 1969
Paul,
I think you are omitting the German connection. It might have been American
money and resources, but it was German (and metric) technology that put man on
the moon. It was the efforts of Dr. Werner von Braun and his hundreds of
mitgenossen that made it possible for John Kennedy's dream to be realized.
The contributions made by von Braun and those Germans are often forgotten or
ignored, yet they are the reason for the success of NASA in those days. The
enemies of metrication who claim that America got to the moon using feet and
inches often refuse to accept that von Braun and his genossen used metric units
and only translated them later to USC.
Even though many think the space shuttle was wonderful, it was nothing more
than a very costly white elephant. It basically came down to ending the
shuttle program or closing NASA as the shuttle program would have bankrupted
NASA. But NASA hadn't done much better with its Constellation program.
Constellation was one big step backwards for NASA and the nation. It was
basically reinventing the wheel and then making the dumb decision to use USC,
which meant no way NASA would be able use it on joint missions with other space
companies using metric units.
Anyways Paul it is good to fantasize about the achievements of NASA in those
days, but don't forget to give credit where credit is rightfully due and that
is to the man that made it happen .... Vielen Dank Herr Dr von Braun.
The unfortunate thing though is that those nations and companies using the
metric system are moving ahead of NASA and the US. It again shows that
America's loss is someone Else's gain.
[USMA:50891] Apollo 11 - 20 July 1969
Paul Trusten
Tue, 19 Jul 2011 23:43:00 -0700
Today is the 42nd anniversary of a triumph in U.S. technology--the fulfillment
of President John F. Kennedy's 1961 stated national goal of "landing a man on
the moon" and, some days later, " returning him safely to the earth."
Age 17 years at the time, I wrote in that night, "All of us are now members of
the second man," because it seemed to me that, from that time on. the
development of the human species meant something different from what it was
before.
The same nation that made "one small step for man" into "one giant leap for
mankind" (said Neil Armstrong, first human being to stand on the moon), should
have a measurement system that is cognate with its ideals in science. We at
USMA shall continue to fight for that national goal.
SIncerely,
Paul R. Trusten
Registered Pharmacist
Vice President and Public Relations Director
U.S. Metric Association, Inc.
www.metric.org
trus...@grandecom.net
+1(432)528-7724
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3783 - Release Date: 07/23/11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3783 - Release Date: 07/23/11
