Slashdot Mirror
NASA Sticking To Imperial Units For Shuttle Replacement
JerryQ sends in a story at New Scientist about the criticism NASA is taking for deciding to use Imperial units in the development of the Constellation program, their project to replace the space shuttle. "The sticking point is that Ares is a shuttle-derived design — it uses solid rocket boosters whose dimensions and technology are based on those currently strapped to either side of the shuttle's giant liquid fuel tank. And the shuttle's 30-year-old specifications, design drawings and software are rooted in pounds and feet rather than newtons and meters. ... NASA recently calculated that converting the relevant drawings, software and documentation to the 'International System' of units (SI) would cost a total of $370 million — almost half the cost of a 2009 shuttle launch, which costs a total of $759 million. 'We found the cost of converting to SI would exceed what we can afford,' says [NASA spokesman Grey Hautaluoma]."
Rhapsody in Numbers
I work for an engineering company, and unit conversions are not a trivial operation. All of our drawings are created in autocad, and after several years it becomes difficult if not impossible to find the original file. As such, converting achieved documents requires recreating the document entirely from scratch. We also use a fairly vigorous quality control system that requires 3 engineers to check every document change, verify the calculation, and repeat the calculation using a different method to ensure that no mistakes were made.
We recently acquired an older project where we needed to simply change the title block on each page, and this process took roughly 5000 hours. For something on the scale of the space shuttle, 370 million isn't unheard of.
Which is the difference between scientists and engineers.... Sometimes the right decision is to listen to the engineers and not the scientists.
The scientists have it easy. They work in theories and numbers. The engineers have to produce usable physical objects. They have to do so in an environment that had significantly established manufacturing infrastructure before the SI standard existed. The countries that have converted to SI are the countries that were late to the industrial revolution party. It is expensive and difficult to overcome a massive established base of equipment. And it's a self perpetuating problem, because you can't just replace individual tools and machines as they wear out. An individual replacement has to be compatible with the rest of your infrastructure.
Sigh all you like. Short of a massive cash investment (Many Trillions of Dollars), or all manufacturing leaving the US and UK for good, Imperial units will stay and be indifferent to the sighs of the "rest" of the world.
(Incidentally, this would have been a *great* thing to spend stimulus money on instead of government employee salaries and other stupid programs.)
The real problem is that it is surprisingly hard to embrace a new system of measurement when you've spent your entire life thinking in different terms.
Yes. Thats why the Canadians haven't been able to do it either. Or the Irish. Not Australia and New Zealand either. Or India.
Oh wait, they *have* all done it. So how come they can, but for the US it's just too hard?
Wonderful +1 Welcome to the real world
Also, SI conversion with stimulus $$ is one of the better ideas I've heard. It creates jobs (and ones that require at least basic education instead of just the ability to pour and smooth asphalt.) Hell, we could have even have offered basic training for people that would be involved in the more trivial but labor intensive efforts.
Mass conversion to SI requires some manual labor (switching road signs, etc), a lot of public awareness stuff, and a lot of Associate-level tech folks (and probably higher-level for review). You know who building a duck pond employs? 4 guys with heavy equipment (or 50 with shovels) and some ducks.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Most of the UK is SI now. Road signs still use miles and you can get two metres of two-by-four but it's liable to be 5cm by 10cm, whatever it's called. And asking for a kilo of tomatoes got me 'That's two pounds, sir, and f*ck the French'
Down with categorical imperatives
the issue isn't just one of redoing the drawings along with the various checks and cross checks to make certain the units were converted properly. I'm sure they could that, but the resulting set of new drawings would be extremely prone to encouraging mistakes. As a minor example. Let's assume that on one piece they currently have a dimension of 12 inches +/- 0.01 inches. So they convert this dimension to metric giving a new value of 30.48 cm +/- 0.025 cm. Excuse me?!?!? That's a rather odd and strange dimensional target to hand off to the machinest. And you'll be getting these rather strange dimensions for everything on the original design. Frankly using the metric measurements would make that rocket utterly hell to construct. So the "proper" solution would be to use the original design and then stretch/shrink various dimensions in order to make the dimensions "rounder" and easier to manufacture. But upon doing that, they have effectively come up with a new design that has to be recertified.
It's not like they're building anything new or buying raw materials; they just need someone to re-draw plans with new measurements in a different system.
Frankly, and without trying to be insulting, you're so ignorant of what the issue is that it's laughable that you even have an opinion on it.
This isn't a matter of trivia, where we are worried if plans are marked in inches or mm. Change to metric, now every bolt must be metric pitch thread, every nut must be changed to accomodate. Every calculation of mass and structural integrity has to be reexamined and recalculated for new components. You don't just magically say "ok, our 3/8" bolts are now to be called 9.525mm bolts" and call it a day.
I'm from the UK, and my mental image of measurements is fucked.
I know how much a pint is. I know how much 1kg is, but I don't know how much is 1 pound in weight. I know how tall I am in feet and inches, but not in meters.
All because we use metric for some reasons, and we are still stuck in imperial for others. My milk comes in bottles that are labelled 568ml although *everyone* refers to it as a pint, obviously our alcoholic drinks come in pints and half pints. Our speed limits are measured in miles per hour, yet we used to run the 100 meters at school. My height has always been given to me in feet and inches (while growing up by my parents) and if you speak to pretty much anyone they will also give their height in feet and inches, yet if I go to the doctor, they want me to know how high in meters. If you go under a low bridge, the height is given in feet.
When I go swimming the pool is in meters, when referring to medium distances anyone aged over 40 refers to yards, everyone below that refers to meters, at larger distances it's rare for anyone to use kilometers. Anyone over 40ish only understands Fahrenheit, everyone below uses degrees centigrade.
Generally speaking things are moving to metric (thankfully) but it will take many many years for imperial to die here currently we are in one big measurement mess and we will be for some time, especially as every traffic sign is in imperial.
Fahrenheit is a wonderfully human temperature scale. Over 100 is Way Too Damn Hot, and under 0 is Way Too Damn Cold. I like that.
We're just talking about units of measure. If it is easier to use imperial units because previous design and drawings were done in imperial, then that's the smart choice. I would be upset if NASA was wasting taxpayer money just so that the design could be done in metric. I actually applaud NASA for making a smart, cost/benefit engineering decision.
Next time you should replace 4999 of those hours with a simple BASH script.
The original files were not available. What shell do you use that compiles to paper?
Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
You don't seem to understand, even a little. These numbers are on a piece of paper that no longer exists on a computer. Not even the most advanced computer script in the world can adjust paper. So okay, I understand part of your point, put it into the computer first, and then run the script. These documents are crawling with numbers. Line numbers, electrical classifications, instrument identifiers. Even if I had a script to manage the process, you then have the problem of units. I'm not doing 5000 ft to meter conversions. We have lengths (using both ft, in, ',and "), weights, volumes, temperatures, powers (hp, MMBtu/hr, kW, MW) and so forth. Even if you could have a script smart enough to check for units, how would it tell the difference between a temperature and a temperature change? If I have a heat exchanger with a temperature change of 50ÂF, the correct metric temperature change is 27.8ÂC. If you got 10ÂC, you used the wrong method. The sheer amount of back checking I would have to do to make sure a rogue script didn't destroy my drawings would be insane.
This is not a simple database you're playing with.
I shudder to think that all you knowledge about the UK comes from watching Top Gear.