3 ms·
Serious question, since this is being done by a US company: is high-end engineering like this done in metric - as surely all the science is done in metric - or
by burlesona 4y ago
Serious question, since this is being done by a US company: is high-end engineering like this done in metric - as surely all the science is done in metric - or is the machinery built in customary units?
I wonder the same about SpaceX and the other rocket companies… does US manufacturing mean you really have no choice but to operate in obsolete units, or are these things so “custom” that they get to be done in metric anyway?
- jccooper 4y agoIt varies. Automotive is basically all metric now. Aviation is typically in customary units. SpaceX is doing their new vehicle in metric, but the Falcon 9 is in the old style. Manufacturing is varied.
- woodruffw 4y agoMy understanding is that there isn't a consistent standard (or enforcement) for metric versus imperial units in engineering. The US military uses a mash of the two, but prefers metric in many instances due to NATO. NASA uses metric internally (I believe), but famously lost the Mars Climate Orbiter[1] because a defense contractor used imperial units instead. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter
- gs17 4y ago> because a defense contractor used [US customary] units That is a common but very limited evaluation of what happened. The contractor ignored the specifications, no proper testing was done to make sure their component would do what it was supposed to before launch, and when someone noticed the issue in-flight they were ignored due to the bureaucratic process until it was too late. The exact same issue would have happened entirely in metric units if one side used CGS and the other used MKS.