Should NASA Move to Metric?

With the current economy in the shape it's in, a switch from English to metric at this time could be a cost effective issue. Funding cut-backs on many projects is the reason.

Attempts have been tried repeatedly for the last 20 year.

Slowly implemented.....failed..........dual dimensioning. Metrics were ignored, Just Metric drawings the worker would read a size of 12MM, the response is oh, about a half an inch.

On CAM software this had limitations and the drawing was created in metric units would have to be converted from metric units (mm) scaled to inch units, why, because the CAM software environment could only load DXF format with units less than 9,999 in length or radius dimensions, so a 10,125 mm x 750 mm object would load up as 398.6220 x 29.5276. did not matter if it was mm or inch units, 9,999 was the number.

This has since changed I'm sure???

The only way for it to happen is a mandate to do it.

Starting with elementary schools teaching metric period. until maybe high school......so then maybe our next generation would not be so arrogant, that we can final have our current American Customary Systems being taught in high school history classes and on CR4 in the remember when blog.

phoenix911

The words itself reveal their purpose. American Standard Units applies for american regions. Metric Units was created for international purpose. I learned both but I prefer metric because of majority use them. If NASA wants to work and co-operate with other nations for a common good (Space Station, moon projects etc), then they should speak in language of majority. Otherwise U.S. will isolate itself from others like U.K. with their left lane driving. It will also make U.S. appear like bulldog who dictates others what to do.

I dont think the UK has isolated itself by driving on the left! We are just part of an exclusive club!

It wont get any easier to delay the inevitable.bite the bullet and implement it especially for new designs and equipment

Nothing wrong with keeping the imperial system for equipment that has been built to that standard, you have to learn to be familiar with both systems, I do it myself but then I was taught to use metric in college 50 years ago and have learned to appreciate the simplicity of it. If it is not pushed in USA schools you will just keep complaining about it.

As a dimensional inspector and former machinist, I feel that it would have been logical to start the transition to metric years ago and that "old school" reluctance to change is probably the main reason it has not been accomplished.

Kicking over into millimeter and back to inch is a simple task that is done dozens of times a day by thousands of inspectors world wide without even thinking about it. The inch to metric debate is like a fabricator getting hung up between fraction and decimal.

It's obvious that fewer conversions will mean the less chance of human errors.

Typical inspectors day - Calibrate CMM in MM, program inspection from inch CAD model and report the inspection in millimeter or both.

Example

• Customer in USA = Inch
  
• Design and Machine houses in Europe = metric blue print in various languages ( last word - Unless Otherwise Specified)
• Tool builder in USA = inch CAD model

Kicking over into millimeter and back to inch is a simple task that is done dozens of times a day by thousands of inspectors

that is the problem.......and that is why after 20 years of trying to switch over to metric we still are trying.

I have to admit; Yes! Due to my "old school" attitude I'm one of those who resists a switch to metric. I will not switch until a switch is mandated. Some of us are comfortable with a dual system but there are many who are not. There are even those who are not comfortable with any system (today's math drop-outs). A dual system introduces a conversion error that can be devastating where very accurate tolerances are involved and there is always the chance of mistakes, both in reading and executing. Bottom line: Yes! NASA should switch to metric. Use of a dual system elsewhere has been in use for a number of years (quarts/liters, pounds/kilograms, etc) and doesn't appear to be a problem. It's like countries all over the world displaying signs, instructions, notices, etc in two or more languages. I think English is the language most displayed as a second language world-wide.

NASA should stay with the standard system INCH.

anything else promotes Napoleon Bonaparte's single most effective way of taking over a country.

Metric should be dropped as a measuring system as the Wentworth system was, antiquated and hard to use despite what is said. Its not even good for those who think in the abstract and of course acadamia is another world.

the standard INCH can be divided into smaller incraments and more easily understood than the metric which is confusing period.

I.E. a gallon of fuel in standard is $3.00 a gallon, in metric its by far not as straight forward. In Europe when you buy a gallon of anything its not $3.00 dollars OR? Its four times that $12.00 fuel in Europe is sold by the liter, this a rip off because of the metric system and of course other lesser known factors.

your reasoning is seemingly incomplete as well as all over the board

Yep they're coming to get you and they have metric handcuffs!

The cost of Petrol has nothing to do with the fact that it is sold in the metric system!

It has to do with taxes!

Metric is a much easier and more understandable system.

YES!

No well-educated person will argue that there is any advantage to the US measuring system. The only 'advantages' are that most of us are accustomed to it, and much of our old equipment was made to use that system. As more and more of our measurement is done using electronics, it becomes a simple flip of a switch or choice of a preference setting.

I learned the metric system over 50 years ago, and the advantages were clear then. I taught physics using nothing but the metric system for 32 years, and was aghast when I retired from teaching, and started working in aerospace,to find that the US aerospace industry still uses inches!

As others have said, it has to be mandated, as it was for the sale of many non-fuel liquids. I haven't heard any complaints lately about drinks being sold in metric quantities

Mandating via NASA would be an excellent way to start the ball rolling.

Other countries have managed to do it............and do it well...........why can't America?

In the state of South Australia, a co-worker and myself changed all our engineering drawings, student notes, etc., from imperial to metric in eighteen months. This was for apprentices and Mechanical Technicians Certificate courses.

In the colleges either new machinery was purchased or changed over to metric, dependent on age and/or ease of change over.

All industry also changed over, applicable Australian National Standards were changed, metric measuring equipment became readily available, etc............the metric system makes life a lot easier.

Certainly for new systems NASA should work in the measurement system of Science, the SI. Maintained by the National Institute of Science and Technology, this American organization based this established set of units on the older MKS metric system but instead of referencing units to man made "pristine" fabrications, this organisation based as many units as possible on natural physical phenomena. Hanging onto antiquated measurement systems for the sake of short term cost savings on new systems causes space probes to slam into planets. That unit system folly cost over $100 million. So much for saving money.

Funny I do all my designs in inch, foot, yard, because I don't confuse the decimal place. When I figure every thing out I convert it to Metric for others. NASA fails because NASA doesn't follow its own specs.

Case in point: specs. say don't launch below set temp or booster seals will fail. Engineers stop launch per spec. Superiors over ride and launch. Seven dead and no charges of negligence or murder. Metrics is the least of NASA's problems.

Should America change? Probably it is to it's advantage. Will I? No, because in metrics it is easy for me to make order(s) of magnitude mistakes that I have to go back and figure out because my mind does not visualize complex 3D systems in metric. This does not make metrics incorrect by any means only less efficient for me because I was not exposed to it in my youth. Retrain my brain to do complex conceptualizing would require more work than post conversion which is easy(except for NASA).

NASA has a new generation of engineers coming on board and they are metric savvy, like China when the old guard is to weak to stop it the new will prevail. How many lives and billions this cost is the measure of dogma in the system.

You are on to something more off topic by still related.

And that is the ability to learn as you age, does it lesson with age or not.

http://www.aolhealth.com/learn-about-it/improving-memory-understanding-age-related-memory-loss/how-memory-changes-with-age/when-brain-cells-die

I find I still learn faster than most young or old I know. I am just short of 50 years old. My spelling for one has improved orders of magnitude in the last ten years. Yet my Dad at 70 is quickly become hard set in the brain. He learns only when forced and then slowly. I can't complain he and all of his siblings, my kin, started as back woods hillbillies and have done very well.

Learning to conceptualize and design in metric would take a while due to all the things I have already stored in standard inch units. To update to metric will be a process of actively changing all of my conceptual and process memories to metric. It is surprising what you use to deal with issues and problem solve.

To me the issue is not ability but the scope of pre stored data I would have to recompile for lack of a better word.

What we have learned in the last five years about the brain is much more than we ever knew before. All of our brain based science now needs to be revised to fit our understanding of how our brains actually works.

As for cm vs in? A ruler is a tool nothing more, the hammer that fits the hand and work best is the tool for the job. Anything else is just the justification for the accumulation of power over another.

I had difficulty at first, I was writing a thermal program for sizing heat exchangers, as I got more involved, I realized basically that a unit is a unit, whether its heat, energy, torque, once I over came that, it seemed that things fell into place.

As far as learning, picturing myself to be as active as when I was in college and going through it over on say a different subject, how I feel my capibiliteis are. it would be trying........then again it was trying in college also, a better word is I don't believe my passion is there. The way it once was.

"Funny I do all my designs in inch, foot, yard, because I don't confuse the decimal place."

I fail to understand why it is less likely to 'confuse' the decimal point in the 'English' system than in the metric. I have certainly seen more than one error due to misplaced decimal points in the 'English' system.

When you talk about orders of magnitude mistakes, I presume you are talking about not remembering which is which between cm and mm etc., that is to say not having a full understanding of the metric prefixes. You would only have to design one complex 3-D system in metric before that would clarify itself.

I am old enough (been legally a senior citizen for some years now) that I too am a bit more at ease measuring in inches than in cm or mm, but as soon as I start doing almost any calculations, (say density compared to water) the advantages of the metric system become immediately obvious.

If you can "visualize complex 3D systems" in inches AND feet at the same time, you've got a waaay better visualization system than I do! I have to admit that I require drawings to visualize anything more complex than a coffee grinder...

Most of the issue come up in volume or complex math where if I make an error (never happens) and confuse a decimal space in one dimension, I don't no if I was a decimeter off. In Imperial I recognize an inconstancy where in metric it is not self evident to me. Not a fault of metrics, just an idiosyncrasy of mine.

As for levels of complication, I draw the line at IC schematics. Electronic diagrams even multi-laired no problem but picturing integrated circuits of any relevant size are brain strainers. They are strictly for box diagrams.

I do have an analog multi processor chip concept I did mostly in my head but some issues will only be decided on the bread board.

I've also been working on a conceptualization of a 240 foot (approx.75m) SWATH ship but a sensor issue needs resolved. (the sensor works fine, it's my understanding of it that is lacking)

90% plus of the design work I do in the 3D of my head. I do the math on paper and jot down variations to be revisited. When it hits the CAD most of the work is done. Some times a change in specs can cause fits. When I conceptualize a design one of my peeves is fabrication and repair. Build it right the first time but crap happens and some body has to fix, modify, or upgrade and then is when it is evident how good of design job was done. IMHO

Brad

I happen to have a Chinese-made mini-lathe/mill combination. The lathe carriage screw in calibrated in inches, while the mill screw is calibrated in metric. A bit confusing at first, but not all that difficult to get used to, once you figure out what is happening. Now, I do have a problem with having to carry two complete sets of tools, since I never know whether the equipment I am going to be working on is metric or inch. I have encountered new equipment fitted with both metric and inch fasteners, even though I live in a "metric" country...But then again, perhaps the problem is that the fasteners are built to sloppy tolerances, no mater what system they are using?

Excuse me folks but most of the answers and comments here have really been off topic. The question has not been should geriatric engineers be forced to abandon their reference system for all future construction. Nor should every machine shop remove all machines not based on the metric system. The question posed is "Where do you come down on the question of whether NASA should make the change to metric?" Now unless some of you are of the opinion that NASA or the greater "all departments of the U.S. Federal government" will be the sole provider of new engineering products your worries and comments are not just off topic to this discussion, your worries are completely unfounded.

For NASA and space exploration in general to grow will require international cooperation. Settling on one measurement standard will expedite fabrication. I do understand NASA's desire to save and continue to use working, existing designs that happen to have been drafted in the older Imperial units. But interfaces, when needed can become a requirement to utilize the old parts. But unless NASA wishes to defy both the international community and Congress, they must switch over to the metric system. Failing to switch over, can be suicidal to a project.

The only advantage of going to metric is it makes things easier to group in multiples of 10. At the end of the day, any measurement system is simply a human construct and the fundemental unit is arbitrarily based on something in the environment. There is nothing in our universe that screams "I need to be measured in meters, yards simply will not work!"

Point blank, NASA has done more to further our understanding of the universe then any other group, ever, combined, and they did it with good old-fashioned inches. Why mess with a good thing?

The only advantage of going to metric is it makes things easier to group in multiples of 10.

Sorry, I have to disagree with you on this point, why continue on in the international arena with a bastardised system of threads, measuring systems, etc.............why should the majority of countries, bow down to the idiosyncrasies of "The mighty USA", just because they use an outdated imperial system of weights and measures.

I grew up with the imperial system.....just over 25 years of it, with all its fractions, 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in 1 yard, 22 yards in a furlong, 8 furlongs in 1 mile, etc......what a joy to change over to the metric system all to a base unit of 10..........how easy..............deca (100), hecto (100), kilo (1 000) mega (1 000 000)then deci (1/10), centi (1/100), milli (1/1 000) etc.....

If NASA is planning to changeover at some stage, then waiting longer will cost even more in future because of inflation; so bite the bullet now ! or asap...

Jules Nijst

Plus, the longer they wait, the more Imperial drawings, parts, etc. that will need to be converted or dumped.