I believe that is the APing of the Washington Post rather than NASA. If you go to NASA's site, they use dual.
Phil On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:00 AM, a-bruie...@lycos.com <a-bruie...@lycos.com>wrote: > 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 > >
