So much for nasa and Metric, just read an article on the Rover Couriosity, here is a viewing a sample on a tray that measures 3" diameter and that it drilled 2.5" deep....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-innovations/rover-curiosity-touches-down-on-mars/2012/08/06/82d90bd4-dfe2-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_gallery.html#photo=21 I once thought highly of nasa and an ideal place to work, but this is absolutely ridiculous, our prized science agancy..... Bruce E. Arkwright, Jr Erie PA Linux and Metric User and Enforcer I will only invest in nukes that are 150 gigameters away. How much solar energy have you collected today? Id put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we dont have to wait til oil and coal run out before we tackle that. I wish I had a few more years left. -- Thomas Edison♽☯♑ Feb 27, 2013 02:21:30 PM, jakub...@gmail.com wrote: It is not true that NASA refused to go metric. NASA agreed to do it, and more than once as matter of fact. My providing training at all the major NASA centers is a proof of the seriousness of the intent at that time. NASA had a Metric Coordinator (perhaps not the exact title) at the DC hdqrtrs for many years; he was well known at both ANMC and USMA. Then came one of the Space Shuttle disasters, followed by blaming, programs stoppage, and periods of should we, shouldn't we. ("Our engineers can build a safe product only with I-P" was the initial argument.) >Several of those go/no-go periods were accompanied by requests to Congress for >more money to cover the cost of metrication. So did contractors do to NASA >sensing an extra profit in the offing and a justification for delays due to >metrication. Not deciding was the easiest way out. > >The 1/2 billion cost of conversion of drawings is one such stupid excuse for >not metricating. Those who read about my Otis metrication experience (see >Metric Today) will understand the silliness of that undertaking. Otis, a 100 >years old company that repairs 100 years old elevators did not need to do it. >Why would NASA with its one-of a kind, short-lived products? Obviously, it has >been an excuse for more money, a request that gives politicians a weapon to >fight the changeover. >If my memory saves me well, this conversion of drawings has been discussed for >over 20 years. Who would need them converted now?! A museum? >As I wrote a generation ago, NASA is not any better in adhering to its >engineering documentation as anybody else. Worse, if anything. A number of >times I heard about stuff being modified to the last day of launch with the >intention of updating the drawings later. Like everywhere else when a deadline >looms. And like elsewhere else, the updating does not often get done. I was >told how repair crews to be send to the space were trained to do repairs >several ways because nobody knew for sure which version was up there. >On the other subject, allow me to say that your tolerance conversion method >exhibits the lack of acknowledge of ISO tolerancing and metric design >practice. I am placing my "how to (not) converting tolerances" article, >published here and elsewhere but too long a time ago, on Amazon Kindle and >will let you know when it comes out. I hope you'll buy the treatise. Stan
