2001-04-09
The auto industry as well as many big industrial companies like caterpillar
are already metric. I'm sure these big companies do business with thousands
of little companies. These little companies have to accommodate the big
companies if they want the big companies business. So, why can't the DOD
and NASA, find domestic companies that are metric friendly and would not
over-charge the government for metric? Once these imperialist contractors
lose business to companies able to do metric, they will either have to
change or go out of business.
Doesn't the USMA publish a book and companies that produce metric parts or
work in metric? Why can't the DOD and NASA get a copy of that book and look
for contractors that will work in metric? It can be done.
John
Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrt�mlich glaubt
frei zu sein.
There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they
are free!
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)
----- Original Message -----
From: "mojo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, 2001-04-09 12:59
Subject: [USMA:12100] RE: Misguided NASA official
> >===== Original Message From [EMAIL PROTECTED] =====
> >It seems that Dr. Edward J. Weiler, NASA's Associate Administrator for
> >Space Science, doesn't believe that NASA can't "tell" American businesses
> >to use the metric system. Dr. Weiler is responsible for providing overall
> >executive leadership of NASA's Space Science Enterprise, and with the
> >attitude voiced in the NPR report, NASA won't provide much leadership to
> >America's metric-based space science activities.
>
> Jim M,
>
> This is a *very* common theme, here in the DOD too. It goes hand in hand
with
> the COTS mentality. It's not that we can't tell the contractor what we
want,
> it's that we aren't allowed to tell the contractor to do anything that the
> contractor can't also sell in a commercial product. The idea is that the
> government saves the taxpayer money by not developing specialized, one-off
> products, but instead the vendor develops products for the general market
and
> the government only has to pay extra for what it really needs.
>
> It's not as brain-dead an idea as it may sound at first, but so far as
I've
> seen it has not been implemented well enough to have the proper effect
<"my
> opinion and not my employer's &c.">. It does make us focus on the one or
two
> fondest wishes, and get rid of a lot of things we really can't justify the
> need for. Unfortunately, it also makes it harder to get in the things you
> really need but that are unpopular.
>
> So, even though there's not yet a mass market for Mars exploration, it's
> likely that Dr. Weiler (or the reporter, I didn't read the referenced
article)
> is saying that the government won't pay for the aerospace contractor to
use
> units other than those it uses in other, commercial aerospace
applications.
> This is consistent with the general attitude wrt government acquisition
(at
> least from my end of the world).
>
> Jim F - I don't think there's any Buy American requirement (but wait a few
> minutes... ;), but anything that has anything to do with space almost
> certainly carries national security concerns, so it's unlikely NASA would
look
> outside our borders for a prime contractor.
>
> I'm not saying I like it, folks, I'm just saying it is indeed the present
> climate.
>
> Mike
>
