Obsolete Shuttle Ops

Now that NASA is developing a new vehicle can we persuade NASA to stop
doing some things they way they always have? This is the time to
modernize.

1) Nautical Miles. Does it make _any_ sense to specify orbits in
nautical miles? Are they doing this to honor the naval aviators who
fly Shuttles? Personally, I'd prefer complete metrification but I can
settle for using statute miles if we can't do kilometers.

2) M50 Coordinates. Didn't the astronomy community switch to J2000 in
the 80's ? I bet all other space programs switched in the 90's.
Let's operate in the current epoch, eh. Yes, I know the nutation
computations are involved but we have fast computers now.

What other old ways of working should NASA get rid of while building
this new vehicle? At least we've gotten rid of iron core memory.

On 11 Dec 2006 19:34:35 -0800, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
to indicate that:

Now that NASA is developing a new vehicle can we persuade NASA to stop
doing some things they way they always have? This is the time to
modernize.

1) Nautical Miles. Does it make _any_ sense to specify orbits in
nautical miles? Are they doing this to honor the naval aviators who
fly Shuttles? Personally, I'd prefer complete metrification but I can
settle for using statute miles if we can't do kilometers.

2) M50 Coordinates. Didn't the astronomy community switch to J2000 in
the 80's ? I bet all other space programs switched in the 90's.
Let's operate in the current epoch, eh. Yes, I know the nutation
computations are involved but we have fast computers now.

Do you really fantasize that these are the things that cause NASA
operations to be so expensive, or unreliable?

wrote:

:Now that NASA is developing a new vehicle can we persuade NASA to stop
:doing some things they way they always have? This is the time to
:modernize.
:
:1) Nautical Miles. Does it make _any_ sense to specify orbits in
:nautical miles? Are they doing this to honor the naval aviators who
:fly Shuttles? Personally, I'd prefer complete metrification but I can
:settle for using statute miles if we can't do kilometers.

Nautical miles is the standard aviation distance measurement, just as
speeds are given in knots.

--
"If you grab them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow."
-- Chuck Colson

wrote:
Now that NASA is developing a new vehicle can we persuade NASA to stop
doing some things they way they always have? This is the time to
modernize.

1) Nautical Miles. Does it make _any_ sense to specify orbits in
nautical miles? Are they doing this to honor the naval aviators who
fly Shuttles? Personally, I'd prefer complete metrification but I can
settle for using statute miles if we can't do kilometers.

2) M50 Coordinates. Didn't the astronomy community switch to J2000 in
the 80's ? I bet all other space programs switched in the 90's.
Let's operate in the current epoch, eh. Yes, I know the nutation
computations are involved but we have fast computers now.

What other old ways of working should NASA get rid of while building
this new vehicle? At least we've gotten rid of iron core memory.

Once upon a time, NASA was metric, but metric use seems to have
stopped with the arrival of Mr. Griffin, sending the Agency back to
the Apollo-era dark ages. Currently, only the USA, Liberia, and
Myanmar still use non-metric units (according to Wikipedia).

"http://www.space.com/news/metric_policy_100199.html"

"NASA's Metric Policy Directive
posted: 04:15 pm ET
01 October 1999
Directive: NPD 8010.2B

Effective Date: January 19, 1996
Expiration Date: January 19, 2000

Responsible Office: AE / Chief Engineer
Subject: Use of The Metric System of Measurement In NASA Programs
1. POLICY

NASA policy for implementing Section 5164, Public Law 100-418, the
Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, is as follows:

a. Adopt the metric system of measurement, defined by the American
National Standards Institute/Institute of Electrical and Electronic
Engineers Standard 268, as the preferred system of weights and
measurements for NASA.

b. Require use of the metric system for all major flight program new
starts unless a waiver is granted.

*c. Use the metric system of measurement in NASA procurements, grants,
and business-related activities to the extent economically feasible.

d. Establish a NASA Metric Transition Plan for transition of all NASA
activities to use of the metric system by a date to be determined,
except to the extent that such use is impractical or will cause
significant inefficiencies or loss of markets to U.S. firms.

e. Permit continued use of the inch-pound system of measurement for
existing systems; other uses of inch-pound measurements will require a
waiver.

f. Cooperate with the private and public sectors to overcome barriers
to use of the metric system and increase understanding of the metric
system.

*g. Report annually to the Congress on NASA's metric transition program
and perceived barriers to metric use until maximum practical transition
is achieved.

2. APPLICABILITY

This NPD applies to NASA Headquarters and NASA Centers."

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:
:1) Nautical Miles. Does it make _any_ sense to specify orbits in
:nautical miles?

Nautical miles is the standard aviation distance measurement, just as
speeds are given in knots.

As it is in ocean navigation. Neither of which has anything to do with
spaceflight, except insofar as some spacecraft briefly operate as aircraft
(and in a few proposals, seacraft!) at the very beginning or very end of
missions.

The international units of *space* navigation are metric.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

In article . com,
Ed Kyle wrote:
Once upon a time, NASA was metric...

Not really. The US side of ISS, for example, was built in Imperial units.
NASA has been officially "going metric" for a long time, but many, many
things got exemptions.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

wrote in news:1165894475.482605.131300@
80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com:

2) M50 Coordinates. Didn't the astronomy community switch to J2000 in
the 80's ? I bet all other space programs switched in the 90's.
Let's operate in the current epoch, eh. Yes, I know the nutation
computations are involved but we have fast computers now.

NASA adopted J2000 for ISS long ago. What are you still bitching about?

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 11 Dec 2006 19:34:35 -0800, in a place far, far away,

Do you really fantasize that these are the things that cause NASA
operations to be so expensive, or unreliable?

Did I mention expensive? No. I do think they are what makes things a
little clumsy. Try finding a source document for the M50 transform
these days. I think the Astronomical Almanac last printed it in the
60s. The current Explanatory Supplement only has the J2000, if memory
serves.

But the bigger issue is, if you don't change, you'll always be stuck in
the old ways. Why not modernize at the start of a new project.

Seems a hostile tone for a simple question.

--Bob

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
wrote in news:1165894475.482605.131300@
80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com:

2) M50 Coordinates. Didn't the astronomy community switch to J2000 in
the 80's ? I bet all other space programs switched in the 90's.
Let's operate in the current epoch, eh. Yes, I know the nutation
computations are involved but we have fast computers now.

NASA adopted J2000 for ISS long ago. What are you still bitching about?


Working with you Shuttle guys. I've seen CEV documents that call for
M50. Let it die already.

--Bob

On 12 Dec 2006 16:42:41 -0800, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
to indicate that:


Rand Simberg wrote:
On 11 Dec 2006 19:34:35 -0800, in a place far, far away,

Do you really fantasize that these are the things that cause NASA
operations to be so expensive, or unreliable?

Did I mention expensive? No. I do think they are what makes things a
little clumsy. Try finding a source document for the M50 transform
these days. I think the Astronomical Almanac last printed it in the
60s. The current Explanatory Supplement only has the J2000, if memory
serves.

But the bigger issue is, if you don't change, you'll always be stuck in
the old ways. Why not modernize at the start of a new project.

Seems a hostile tone for a simple question.

It's a tone that indicates frustration at people picking at gnats,
when there are elephants to knock down.