Space In General

His engineers giving him this info aren't, so why would he?

Because his engineers should. The SI units are constructed so that 1*1=1 in most cases. Without SI units you need to introduce constants (magic numbers) just to balance the equations. It’s unnecessary and it increases the risk of making calculation errors.
 
Because his engineers should. The SI units are constructed so that 1*1=1 in most cases. Without SI units you need to introduce constants (magic numbers) just to balance the equations. It’s unnecessary and it increases the risk of making calculation errors.

His engineers should why? When they're dealing with a ton of legacy material that was never put in SI and many engineering in American firms don't use SI. I'm sure most of them if not all know how to use SI units, in American Engineering schools we're taught both and end up using the one that most would rather not use.
 
The observed number of fireballs and meteors has increased "exponentially" over the past decade or so according to reports. Data do not seem available for the year 2018.





 
His engineers should why? When they're dealing with a ton of legacy material that was never put in SI and many engineering in American firms don't use SI. I'm sure most of them if not all know how to use SI units, in American Engineering schools we're taught both and end up using the one that most would rather not use.

Because it’s clumsy to rely on magic numbers in your equations.

If you have a ton of legacy material then you convert that to SI before you put it to use. You’d have to convert it anyway, but the benefit of doing it outside of the equation is that it makes the equation more clear and that you only need to do it once instead of every single time you want to calculate something.
 
Because it’s clumsy to rely on magic numbers in your equations.

If you have a ton of legacy material then you convert that to SI before you put it to use. You’d have to convert it anyway, but the benefit of doing it outside of the equation is that it makes the equation more clear and that you only need to do it once instead of every single time you want to calculate something.

Good luck with that then, especially in an industry that has archived, lost and kept material for the pas six decades in such a manner, simply "converting" isn't all that fast and effective. Especially when adaptable engineers work for them and should know the English system and SI. Despite the whole "magic number" tangent your running with it's not going to change anytime soon or in the foreseeable future, thus expecting it when you see him or others like him tweet out said figures is silly and unproductive.
 
Good luck with that then, especially in an industry that has archived, lost and kept material for the pas six decades in such a manner, simply "converting" isn't all that fast and effective. Especially when adaptable engineers work for them and should know the English system and SI. Despite the whole "magic number" tangent your running with it's not going to change anytime soon or in the foreseeable future, thus expecting it when you see him or others like him tweet out said figures is silly and unproductive.
Do you have any links to support this? These rather old links suggest to me that NASA has been moving towards SI or at least metric units for some time and a third link appears to indicate that the failure of Lockheed Martin to use SI as specified by NASA has resulted in one spacecraft going off course.

https://www.space.com/3332-nasa-finally-metric.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17350-nasa-criticised-for-sticking-to-imperial-units/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter#Cause_of_failure
 
Last edited:
Because his engineers should. The SI units are constructed so that 1*1=1 in most cases. Without SI units you need to introduce constants (magic numbers) just to balance the equations. It’s unnecessary and it increases the risk of making calculation errors.
This is kind of moot when it's not people doing the calculations, which they shouldn't be doing (bar quick sanity checks). The equations can be as convoluted as they want, computers won't care. In those cases where you won't be relying on computers, you probably don't need exact math anyway and can use rules of thumb. I find more value in the numbers being intuitive to understand. Metric conversions are an advantage for sure, but it's not enough to make them superior by default if you're more familiar with imperial units.
 
Do you have any links to support this? These rather old links suggest to me that NASA has been moving towards SI or at least metric units for some time and a third link appears to indicate that the failure of Lockheed Martin to use SI as specified by NASA has resulted in one spacecraft going off course.

https://www.space.com/3332-nasa-finally-metric.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17350-nasa-criticised-for-sticking-to-imperial-units/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter#Cause_of_failure

Uh the fact I'm in said industry, have friends in it and the fact that I was taught in both Imperial and SI because we are expected to know both due to the legacy information that is used throughout the industry. I don't doubt where ITARs are involved that there is SI units used but as @Exorcet has just spelled out, it really doesn't matter. When I'm doing an FEA work up and the program I use allows for an effortless exchange between Imperial to SI for mistakes being made that will be checked along the chain as well as the manufacturing/engineering process the argument of "speak in SI units you old fool" is again misplaced.
 
Good luck with that then, especially in an industry that has archived, lost and kept material for the pas six decades in such a manner, simply "converting" isn't all that fast and effective. Especially when adaptable engineers work for them and should know the English system and SI. Despite the whole "magic number" tangent your running with it's not going to change anytime soon or in the foreseeable future, thus expecting it when you see him or others like him tweet out said figures is silly and unproductive.

Oh, I forgot that the purpose of GTPlanet is productivity. How silly of me. What have you produced today?

Kgf does not relate directly to mass, thus it’s a bad measure of force. Newton relates directly to mass, thus it’s a better unit to use.

This is kind of moot when it's not people doing the calculations, which they shouldn't be doing (bar quick sanity checks). The equations can be as convoluted as they want, computers won't care. In those cases where you won't be relying on computers, you probably don't need exact math anyway and can use rules of thumb. I find more value in the numbers being intuitive to understand. Metric conversions are an advantage for sure, but it's not enough to make them superior by default if you're more familiar with imperial units.

Kgf is a metric unit of force, not an imperial unit. But it’s not an SI unit, because it doesn’t follow the form F = m*a (force equals mass times acceleration), instead it uses F = m*a/g (force equals mass times acceleration divided by the average gravitational force per mass unit on the surface of the Earth). Which makes it not only more complicated, but also silly when you’re in the business of spaceflight, where the gravity on the surface of Earth is only relevant for a fraction of the flight.

And computers don’t program themselves (unless you use machine learning, but then you have no idea what the computer is actually doing so it’s not the safest way to conduct critical calculations). Introducing unnecessary variables is like asking for more bugs in your software.
 
Last edited:
And computers don’t program themselves (unless you use machine learning, but then you have no idea what the computer is actually doing so it’s not the safest way to conduct critical calculations). Introducing unnecessary variables is like asking for more bugs in your software.
I don't disagree in principle, though unit conversions aren't the most difficult thing in the world to do, and they're probably going to be useful to have in a world where not everyone is using the same units for a variety of reasons. Astronomy for example uses non SI units because they make more sense in that field in terms of making data human readable and sometimes in making calculations easier. Conversion factors aren't so complex that they necessarily introduce error and they can more than make up for the slight complexity they add by reducing the chance of human error due to a lack of familiarity.
 
Oh, I forgot that the purpose of GTPlanet is productivity. How silly of me. What have you produced today?

Finished up a PDR on a project that I'm a team member on. Not sure why you say sarcastically "forgot the purpose of GTP is productivity" and then ask me what I personally produced, as if me and GTP are interchangeable. Also my statement is a general speaking point and has nothing to do with the platform it was said on. As for Kgf, Exorcet has highlighted all that needs to be said and I've already said plenty earlier as to why conversion factors aren't a big deal and Imperial units are used still.
 
Finished up a PDR on a project that I'm a team member on. Not sure why you say sarcastically "forgot the purpose of GTP is productivity" and then ask me what I personally produced, as if me and GTP are interchangeable. Also my statement is a general speaking point and has nothing to do with the platform it was said on. As for Kgf, Exorcet has highlighted all that needs to be said and I've already said plenty earlier as to why conversion factors aren't a big deal and Imperial units are used still.

Because you questioned the productivity of my post, for some reason.

There’s no good reason not to use SI units when possible. They are designed to be rational, clear and precise.

I don't disagree in principle, though unit conversions aren't the most difficult thing in the world to do, and they're probably going to be useful to have in a world where not everyone is using the same units for a variety of reasons. Astronomy for example uses non SI units because they make more sense in that field in terms of making data human readable and sometimes in making calculations easier. Conversion factors aren't so complex that they necessarily introduce error and they can more than make up for the slight complexity they add by reducing the chance of human error due to a lack of familiarity.

Added complexity leads to an increased risk of errors. It doesn’t necessarily lead to errors, but it’s a bad practice to make a system more complex than it needs to be.

Astronomy have their own international system of units, but it’s a different field of research with different needs and they have a good reason not to use SI. In their case, SI would be an increase in complexity.

It’s also a NASA policy to maximise the use of SI units:

(8) Metric System of Measurement. Use the International System of Units (commonly known as the Système Internationale (SI) or metric system of measurement) for all new space flight projects and programs, especially in cooperative efforts with International Partners. 15 United States Code (U.S.C.) §205b and EO 12770 provide relief from use of SI if it is found that obtaining components in SI units would result in a significant increase in cost or delays in schedule. Each program and project will perform and document an assessment to determine an approach that maximizes the use of SI and document the approach in the Program or Project Plan in accordance with the governing NPR. This assessment will document an integration strategy if both SI and U.S. customary units are used in a project or program.
 
I think you are making a big deal out of nothing.

I would agree. If the people that to do the calculations cannot handle constants when using imperial units, then they should not be doing the calculations. Switching to SI units is not going to magically fix the problem of not being able to do the calculations. Further, there should be procedures in place to verify the calculations to minimize potential for mistakes.
 
@Exorcet, @LMSCorvetteGT2, @eran0004, @R1600Turbo

What? I'm late to a conversation about units... and NASA in particular?!?!?

Some segments of NASA work with primarily SI units, and some work with primarily "standard" units (meaning the US system). And usually there's a rather uncomfortable interchange between those communities. The one I personally experienced the most at NASA had to do with launch vehicles. Most launch vehicles are designed and spec'd in standard units. They'd be talking about such-and-such pounds of payload delivered to low earth orbit, etc. And of course the first question from the other side of the fence is... is that pounds mass or pounds force? I hate that that exists. Once you were dealing with a spacecraft the units were all SI. The people who designed the spacecraft, and who managed it in orbit and beyond were all working in SI. The question invariably comes... why can't the launch vehicle people work in metric?

Well, because all of their tools, and all of their institutional internal testing data, and all of their materials specs, and all of their engineering intuition, is built in standard units. They know who much stress a 3/8" bolt can take. They do not have testing data for a 9.5mm bolt, because that's not 3/8". In some cases, it would require millions upon millions of dollars to re-do institutional tables that tell engineers the tolerances for various materials. They keep buying 3/8" bolts, because they know how they can use them safely.

Metric is better overall. It was designed not from an archaic "how many of my feet fit between here and there", but instead from a perspective of engineering. But there are many companies who continue business as usual because it would basically ruin them not to.

All of that is true except Celsius - which is an abomination and needs to be eliminated. SI needs to drop Celsius for Fahrenheit. There is absolutely no need for Celsius to exist... at all. It doesn't play any nicer with SI units, it doesn't help anyone do anything, and is just lunacy.
 
You don't use Kelvin?

Oh of course! I mean what would we do without Kelvin?

Kelvin and Rankine are interchangeable in terms of their unit conversion simplicity and effective purpose. I've never heard anyone argue about why Kelvin is somehow objectively superior to Rankine. Fahrenheit is objectively superior to Celsius though... in every way except spelling. Celsius could just as easily be spelled Selcius, so it's not exactly the easiest thing to spell. But Fahrenheit is another level of spelling nonsense.
 
How so? All I said was that Elon should use SI units. I don’t see the big deal there.
Maybe he's referring to the four fairly argumentative posts since that one...

And just for fun, because it belongs in this... :)
46527768914_cf0ec1c878_o.jpg
 
Because you questioned the productivity of my post, for some reason.

There’s no good reason not to use SI units when possible. They are designed to be rational, clear and precise.

No I didn't, it was general question of why does it matter. I imagine this is a mindset you have whether it is here or in a real world setting and thus since it really is no harm to you or me, and you can easily convert the units...why does it matter if he says it that way or another? I agree that SI units should be used when possible, but if he was given standard units by his team and that's what they work in, then so be it.
 
From today's edition of spaceweather.com:

A MONTH WITHOUT SUNSPOTS:
There are 28 days in February. This year, all 28 of them were spotless. The sun had no sunspots for the entire month of Feb. 2019. This is how the solar disk looked every day:

blanksun_strip.jpg


The last time a full calendar month passed without a sunspot was August 2008. At the time, the sun was in the deepest Solar Minimum of the Space Age. Now a new Solar Minimum is in progress and it is shaping up to be similarly deep. So far this year, the sun has been blank 73% of the time--the same as 2008.

Solar Minimum is a normal part of the solar cycle. Every ~11 years, sunspot counts drop toward zero. Dark cores that produce solar flares and CMEs vanish from the solar disk, leaving the sun blank for long stretches of time. These minima have been coming and going with regularity since the sunspot cycle was discovered in 1859.

However, not all Solar Minima are alike. The last one in 2008-2009 surprised observers with its depth and side-effects. Sunspot counts dropped to a 100-year low; the sun dimmed by 0.1%; Earth's upper atmosphere collapsed, allowing space junk to accumulate; the pressure of the solar wind flagged while cosmic rays (normally repelled by solar wind) surged to Space Age highs. All these things are happening again.

sunspotcycle_strip.png


How does this affect us on Earth? The biggest change may be cosmic rays. High energy particles from deep space penetrate the inner solar system with greater ease during periods of low solar activity. Indeed, NASA spacecraft and space weather balloons are detecting just such an increase in radiation. Cosmic rays can alter the flow of electricity through Earth's atmosphere, trigger lightning, potentially alter cloud cover, and dose commercial air travelers with extra "rads on a plane."

As February ended, March is beginning ... with no sunspots. Welcome to Solar Minimum!
 
Planet Nine likely to be found within decade, they say now.

eiVggFQvKvAW7VZV33JJ56-320-80.jpg

Artist's illustration of the hypothetical Planet Nine, which may lie undiscovered in the outer solar system.
(Image: © Caltech/R. Hurt (IPAC))




missing-image.svg




Orbits of distant Kuiper Belt objects and the hypothesized Planet Nine. Orbits rendered in purple are primarily controlled by Planet Nine's gravity and exhibit tight orbital clustering. Green orbits are strongly coupled to Neptune and exhibit a broader orbital dispersion. Updated orbital calculations suggest that Planet Nine is an approximately 5-Earth-mass planet that resides on a mildly eccentric orbit with a period of about 10,000 years.


https://www.space.com/planet-nine-easier-find-than-thought.html
 
A class C solar flare may arrive at Earth on the 10th or 11th. Due to Earth's weakening magnetic field, this flare may produce unexpectedly outsized effects.

From today's edition of spaceweather.com:
EARTH-DIRECTED SOLAR FLARE: This morning, March 8th at 0300 UT, the magnetic field of sunspot AR2734 became unstable and exploded. The result was a C1-class solar flare aimed directly at Earth. NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory recorded the slowly unfolding explosion:



Play the movie again. In it you can see a shadowy shock wave billowing away from the blast site like a ripple in a giant pond. This is a sign that the blast may have hurled a coronal mass ejection (CME) into space, possibly toward Earth. Radio emissions from the shock wave suggest an expansion velocity of more than 600 km/s (1.3 million mph).

We are still awaiting confirmation from SOHO coronagraphs that a CME is indeed en route. If so, it would likely arrive on March 10th or 11th. Stay tuned for updates.
 
The SpaceX Starship hopper has been moved to the launch pad. A new top is currently being constructed, and there's a theory that after the successful Raptor engine testing that they might make it full scale. Speaking of, V2 Raptor engines are on their way to the launch site and will be mounted next week.

53721433_10217202548872372_6886548900254056448_n.jpg

53800885_10218393458209066_4367493578344103936_n.jpg
 
Back