4 ms·

Lot of "why not metric" comments. Heres what I think is the main reason: it's just not worth the effort. The US isn't missing out on tangible benefits from not

Lot of "why not metric" comments. Heres what I think is the main reason: it's just not worth the effort. The US isn't missing out on tangible benefits from not standardizing with the rest of the world. Where it matters in science, we already use metric. Day to day, who cares? Why go through all the trouble to switch? You need people to retrain with a new system, retool signs and equiptment, and so on. It's just not worth it to be able to divide units by 10 more easily, especially when the system we already have is full of powers of 2 or 12 which are frankly a bit easier to divide with day to day (1/3 of a foot is 4 inches, while 1/3 of a meter is 33.33333333.... centimeters). It's just not worth the hassle.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
My physics teacher at school told us many times how lucky we were not to have to work in imperial. I'll take his word over yours. There's a midpoint between science and day-to-day (engineering). Anyway, if you want the US to continue its decline, such a can't-be-bothered attitude will help. Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter "However, on September 23, 1999, communication with the spacecraft was lost as the spacecraft went into orbital insertion, due to ground-based computer software which produced output in non-SI units of pound-force seconds (lbf·s) instead of the SI units of newton-seconds (N·s) specified in the contract between NASA and Lockheed." Some people don't learn.
- vikramkr 6y ago
  Who in physics works in imperial? Research is solidly metric in the US. The mars orbiter loss was due to a failure to perform the necessary checks etc to make sure the mission was on track. Continue reading the section about the failure report. The discrepancy had been noted by humans and had been brought up, but the concerns were ignored because they failed to fill out the correct paperwork, and NASA takes responsibility for the loss, and does not blame lockheed.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    > Who in physics works in imperial? Research is solidly metric in the US. The Mars Climate Orbiter was a research vehicle, no? It wasn't expected to make money I'm sure. > was due to a failure to perform the necessary checks etc Which would have been unnecessary had they both used the same units. > and NASA takes responsibility for the loss, and does not blame lockheed. I did not mention blame, why did you bring that up? Point is, had they used the same units this failure mode would have been closed off.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

My physics teacher at school told us many times how lucky we were not to have to work in imperial. I'll take his word over yours. There's a midpoint between science and day-to-day (engineering). Anyway, if you want the US to continue its decline, such a can't-be-bothered attitude will help. Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter "However, on September 23, 1999, communication with the spacecraft was lost as the spacecraft went into orbital insertion, due to ground-based computer software which produced output in non-SI units of pound-force seconds (lbf·s) instead of the SI units of newton-seconds (N·s) specified in the contract between NASA and Lockheed." Some people don't learn.

vikramkr 6y ago
Who in physics works in imperial? Research is solidly metric in the US. The mars orbiter loss was due to a failure to perform the necessary checks etc to make sure the mission was on track. Continue reading the section about the failure report. The discrepancy had been noted by humans and had been brought up, but the concerns were ignored because they failed to fill out the correct paperwork, and NASA takes responsibility for the loss, and does not blame lockheed.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  > Who in physics works in imperial? Research is solidly metric in the US. The Mars Climate Orbiter was a research vehicle, no? It wasn't expected to make money I'm sure. > was due to a failure to perform the necessary checks etc Which would have been unnecessary had they both used the same units. > and NASA takes responsibility for the loss, and does not blame lockheed. I did not mention blame, why did you bring that up? Point is, had they used the same units this failure mode would have been closed off.