This website is kept for archival purposes only and is no longer updated.
 | |
| ||||| Friday, March 01, 2002 - 09:52 pm I see small signs that NASA is occasionally complying with the recent Inspector General's report by including metric equivalents when reporting quantities in other units. That greatly benefits the tens of millions of students who are preparing to live in a totally metric environment. In addition, this makes the information more accessible to the 95% of the world's people who are already fully metricated and who receive absolutely no training on feet, miles, and psi. A few quantities seem to have slipped through the cracks, though. The NASA pages refer to the altitude as 360 miles and do not provide a metric equivalent. If those are nautical miles, then that would be 667 km. If those are statute miles, then the altitude would be 579 km. One hopes that NASA knows which of these two altitudes the orbiter is at. We would like to know, too. Which is it, NASA -- 667 km or 579 km? There are three different miles used in the USA but only one kilometer, so I trust statements which use kilometers. Also, reference is made here and there to cabin pressures of 14.7 psi and 10.2 psi. Those equate to 101 kPa and 70 kPa, respectively. NASA, it's nice to see you heading towards globally understandable communications. J.R. Frysinger, CAMS Dept. of Physics and Astronomy College of Charleston Charleston, SC 29424 http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj | |
| ||||| Saturday, March 02, 2002 - 01:34 am Thank You JR for the translations. I don't know why Americans insist on using measurements that are impossible to learn, and extremely difficult to work with. And when you get a result, it is meaningless. From what I understand, NASA actually uses metric units in its work. Even its founder, Dr. Werner von Braun, never used American measurements and loathed them. His designs and concepts were strictly metric. I can't imagine the confusion, errors and cost that the US must incur by constantly converting and reconverting figures. We in the world work only in metric and never endure this headache. No wonder American products don't sell outside the US. | |
| ||||| Saturday, March 02, 2002 - 06:48 pm The 360 miles quoted are "statute miles" Interestingly enough, NASA does not use this value at any time internally. Traditionally, altitudes are given in nautical miles, and the documents which define and describe the HST program (from the 70's and 80's) indicate altitudes in nautical miles. Modern calculations are typically performed in metric units and converted to nautical miles for ease of comparison. Most documents list both km and Nmi. Statute miles are only used in press releases to the general public as they are far more familiar to most americans. | |
| ||||| Sunday, March 03, 2002 - 10:41 am Thanks for that information on NASA's internal procedures, Dave. It's interesting that you say they typically work in terms of meters. This is something that has educational value; due to the persistent use of statute miles (occasionally nautical miles), feet, and pounds in NASA press releases, many Americans are convinced that those are the units NASA works in all the time, even for non-STS missions. As a physics instructor I often use NASA materials regarding various satellites and those are completely metric, or nearly so. But the average American doesn't see those pages. I think the time has come for NASA to realize that Americans have become global thinkers and are familiar with kilometers, due to the Olympics and local foot races if nothing else. Indeed, more Americans have run 5 km races than have rowed or sailed 5 nautical mile races. NASA's public materials have a tremendous and valuable impact on public education and they should be expected to be at the front edge of public knowledge. NASA has wonderfully taught the public about orbits, black holes, radiation, star dust, geomagnetic storms, lunar surfaces, and telescopes working at all sorts of wavelengths. It boggles the mind that NASA should think Americans cannot comprehend kilometers, meters, kilograms, and degrees Celsius. This is especially true since these have been taught in American science classes since the late 1950s. Find an American under the age of 60 who has not used a meter stick, a lab balance, and a Celsius thermometer! A quick look at our grocery shelves and computer store displays will tell us that we buy computer cables by the meter and beverages by the liter. A moment's thought reminds us that a 1 L bottle of water weighs about 1 kg. We've had dual labeling on packages for a decade. Noting NASA's superb abilities to explain arcane astronomical phenomena, I am confident that they can use only metric units in their public materials in an understandable manner. J.R. Frysinger, CAMS Dept. of Physics and Astronomy College of Charleston Charleston, SC 29424 http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj | |
| ||||| Sunday, March 03, 2002 - 05:13 pm The movement to convert the US to metric is not new. Thomas Jefferson was involved in a rather lengthy debate on just this topic. Neither is the move a simple one, and it's not just a matter of the general public's familiarity. Remember that the United States is an industrial nation. The change to metric would require changes to nearly every business in the country. Factories would need to be retooled. We would have to use A4 paper rather than 8.5 x 11 inch. New nuts would not fit old bolts. The cost would be immense. The change to metric has been accomplished by many industries, however. Of particular note is the soft-drink (1 liter, 2 liter) and the liquor industry (750 ml, 1L, 1.75L). The milk and beer industries have resisted. Electricity has been sold in kW-hr as long as I can remember, and most Americans think of the Watt as a unit of light bulb. Gasoline was unsuccessfuly sold in liters. Pharmeceuticals are sold in milligrams rather than the "antiquated" apothecary units (dram, minim, etc.). Given that our system of units proscribe as well as describe, it is necessary that the conversion be incremental to permit continuity. Perhaps if metric was chosen as official units in the early 1800's (pre industrial revolution), then we would have had an easier time. Currently, I find that the metric-english dichotomy offers many amusing opportunities to create hybrid units. The public has accepted the notation "k" to mean "thousand" so want ads offer salaries of "$40K" or 40 kilo-bucks. $1M is one Mega-buck. I have even seen high altitude balloons described as floating at 100 k-ft (100 kilofeet). Interestingly enough, Europeans describe large distances using km. This seems correct except 3,000 km is 3 Mm, and I have never heard this used. There is a highway outside of Tucson Arizona which is marked entirely in metric. The "mile markers" are km markers, distances to exits are given in km. Lanes end in 300m. Driving it was refreshing until I came upon a confusing sign. It said "Speed Limit - 55" | |
| ||||| Sunday, March 03, 2002 - 05:16 pm Why must the metres be converted to nautical miles to compare? Why not comvert the nautical miles to metres and compare it that way? This way the feeling for kilometres increases and the need to put nautical miles in documents insn't needed. Doing this only increases the cost of producing those documenets. A waste of time and money. Especially when nothing is gained. And as for the public being more familiar with statute miles vs. nautical miles, I doubt they really know the difference. In fact, Most Americans when hearing the term nautical mile just assume it is the same mile as statute. Why not, a mile is a mile, no? Nobody today real realises that all the English units had multiple definitions of a given unit with the same name. | |
| ||||| Monday, March 04, 2002 - 01:34 pm I´m living in germany, a totally metric country. I´ve been in the US 2 times ('76 and '97) and i´ve been totally confused with the units you use. Now we have switched our own currency from Deutsche Mark to Euro (the factor is 1.95583) and now I´m realizing just why i´ve been so confused: I simply wasn´t accustomed to the units. I think it´s just a matter of time (perhaps a generation, just look at all the stuff that has to be rewritten) until nobody uses the english units anymore and everybody 'thinks' in metric units. | |
| ||||| Monday, March 04, 2002 - 02:28 pm I live in canada, which is almost completely metric. But there are still some things that are still using the English system. Like with construction, wood is always sold in "in" and "ft". At Macdonalds or DQ, they use "oz" and "lbs". Peoples use "ft" for hieght, and "lbs" for wieght. I really get confused, but whenever somebody asks me how high I am, I say "184cm", then they reply "how much is that in feet?", then i say "I don't know, but neither should you". Then there is the whole thing about people who try to say that kilograms is there wight!!! Remember this, kilograms is for MASS! The fact is that untill the US fully converts to metric, Canada will never be fully metric, the US just has too much influence on us. | |
| ||||| Monday, March 04, 2002 - 05:45 pm The above comments point out the reality that one of the major industrial nations on Earth (the U.S.) continues to use non-metric units in matters of everyday life and that this creates a burden on many people, inside and outside the U.S., to convert back and forth between this hodgepodge of units and metric units. But those comments neglect to mention that the U.S. is much more metric now than it was in the 70s when the government de-funded the metric program. Virtually all federal building projects are now metric. Roughly half the money spent on highway construction in the U.S. is being spent on projects designed and constructed in metric units. The Navy's latest class of amphibious assault ships was designed in and is being built entirely in metric units. Over half of all Americans live in states who now allow metric-only labeling on products regulated by the states. Work is in progress to amend the FPLA to do the same at the federal level. These steps are partly in response to global economic pressures. Japan and the Republic of Korea forbid importing any items for sale that contain any non-metric indications; all goods sold there must be marked only in metric units. Australia has similar laws. The European Union has a directive that goes into effect at the end of 2009 to do the same thing; it is on its third and probably last deferment of the effective date. The reason for this global market move is that the metric system has become the international language of measurement, just as English has become the international language of business. Non-metric units present an opportunity for fraud in countries where they are not recognized and the ban on them is spreading. Let's face it, Americans, we're outvoted! That's global democracy for you and money is the ballot. Our share of global trade has slipped from 15% to 10% in the last decade and our American businesses are being forced by existing federal law to continue retailing in non-metric units, which is an additional cost factor. Before you get too wound up trumpeting the virtues of you favorite yard, pound, and gallon, you should realize that those have been defined in terms of the metric system for about 108 years now. In 1875 we were a charter member of the group that started the metric system off as the international system of measurement. Shortly after 1805 we did our first coastal survey using the original meter standard and coastal surveys have been done using that unit, directly or otherwise, ever since then. The metric system is as much a part of us, if not more so, than any other collection of units. If you think we stopped metricating in the 70s, you just haven't noticed the changes since then. For a brief, online history of the metric system, see the work in progress at http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj/background.htm And for more on the continuing move towards metrication in the U.S. see http://www.metricmethods.com/UPLR.php and http://www.metricmethods.com/metricUS.php J.R. Frysinger, CAMS Dept. of Physics and Astronomy College of Charleston Charleston, SC 29424 http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj | |
| ||||| Monday, March 04, 2002 - 10:04 pm Actually, the temperature unit is the Kelvin, not "degree Kelvin" like "Degree Celsius". | |
| ||||| Monday, March 04, 2002 - 10:30 pm By golly, you are quick to the point, Old Fart (probably my age, give or take). Yes indeed, it turns out that we have these peculiar forms of the meter. We say inch to mean 0.0254 m and the rest of the world uses simple powers of ten, as in 1 cm to mean 0.01 m. Slipping the decimal point to change prefixes makes the SI version easier. 17.8 cm equals 0.178 m but 17.8 inches do not equal 0.178 yards. Maybe that efficiency is why the SI's getting most of the votes. But the real, bottom line is that Americans are taught the metric system and nobody else is taught our non-metric non-system. If we don't stick to using metric units, an impediment to communication arises. And we're "odd man out" here. The only value to not giving up these old units is that it takes less effort on our part; but laziness has never been one of our celebrated national traits. In the meantime it costs us. It has been estimated that students lose several months of math education time that could be better spent, judging from international tests. It costs our industry, which must deal with dual sets of measurements. It costs all of us when the added confusion of units costs lives and satellites. And it's probably costing us in the world market place. Inefficiency has never been one of our celebrated national traits either. J.R. Frysinger, CAMS Dept. of Physics and Astronomy College of Charleston Charleston, SC 29424 http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj | |
| ||||| Tuesday, March 05, 2002 - 12:06 am My friend, you have hit the nail on the head. I admire the way you home in on the main point. My personal view is that the government is costing us money in the long run by not taking firm, positive action. Some of my friends prefer the approach of letting things take their natural course, but I view that as being about as tasteful as getting a flu shot or vaccination by having the needle moved inward at 1 mm per minute. Dang it, let's just take that shot and get it over with. Let's set a deadline, an "M-Day", and make it happen -- far enough off to prepare, but close enough that our politicians can't chicken out and cancel things like they did in the 70s. That's the way that Australia metricated and it was virtually painless. The Australian government convened all the responsible industry groups and told them to get their industries ready. The government prepared the people. Then it happened. Done. That's the way Britain shifted to decimal currency in the 70s. That's the way that we recently shifted to decimal stock market operations (though this was not so government intensive). That's the way the European Union shifted to the euro. Two months overlap were alloted but within 2 weeks 95% of all transactions were done in euros! The French gave up their beloved Franc, the German their marks, and the Greeks gave up their 2000 year old drachmas! Nowadays, everyone's pussyfooting around. The government is afraid the citizens are going to throw their 2 L Coke bottles at them while chanting "We don't understand metric units!" The agencies that could do more for metric awareness (the various math and science teachers organizations, the NSF, NASA, Dept. of Education) are afraid to stick their heads out. And everyone's waiting for the government to say "go". Who's in charge of running our country and keeping our economic situtation hopeful? If this administration were truly serious about doing something to help American goods sell abroad, it would have something before Congress to set an M-Day before the next presidential election. And if Americans realized what was going on (or not!), if they realized how this dual-unit system is hurting their children's education, they would be writing to their congressional representatives demanding action. For what it's worth, that's my opinion. In the meantime, I teach the metric system in addition to physics and astronomy. I encourage responsible agencies to teach the metric system. I also encourage NASA to teach the metric system as well as they teach astronomy and space science. Their artificial "translation" of metric information to feet and pounds while blaming it on the American public's knowledge is an insult to us all. If they can't explain and use meters, they can't explain and talk about meteors. J.R. Frysinger, CAMS Dept. of Physics and Astronomy College of Charleston Charleston, SC 29424 http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj | |
| ||||| Tuesday, March 05, 2002 - 12:55 pm Discussion on this thread seems to have dwindled. Before I leave it, I would like to recommend a site to those who are interested in promoting or just learning about the metic system. This is the home page of the U.S. Metric Association, a not-for-profit organization of people from a wide array of backgrounds. http://www.metric.org/ They provide an online mail list for discussion and web pages containing a metric ton of information -- all for free. Those who join the organization also receive a bimonthly newsletter. J.R. Frysinger, CAMS Dept. of Physics and Astronomy College of Charleston Charleston, SC 29424 http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj | |
| |
