top 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 71 points 3 months ago (2 children)

NASA used metric, it was a contractor that fucked up the conversion on their piece which they decided to do in US units for some reason

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    even worse, Americans cant even get a pint right and will short you 4oz

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I consider myself a fairly "progressive and open minded American". I have even paid lip service to the superiority of the metric system.

    But I can say with sincerity, this is the first thing that has ever made me truly care about metric vs imperial... or conversions in general.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    They're both imperial though. The Brits are fucking weird. They act like they use metric, but they swap between them like crazy. The US and British have different versions of several measurements with the same name though. If you look into the history of the measurements, some of them get insane with dozens of different potential values.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago
    [–] 9 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    When you watch a ULA launch stream and they talk about how many nautical miles in altitude they are it’s just so fuckin embarrassing

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Fun fact:

    Internally they switch between imperial and metric all the time. The broadcast is in imperial for US viewers.

    Sauce: once upon a time I worked there

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    I still don’t understand nautical miles. Everyone knows regular miles. Or even feet, that’s what Blue Origin does because it’s relative to aircraft altitude that people might know. But nautical miles? I don’t get it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    It's a space ship I guess. I have a fondness for sci-fi that uses naval conventions because that's probably how things will end up going, because tradition takes priority over utility.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    It's because if you travel at one knot for an hour you'll travel a nautical mile. Still dumb but that's where it comes from... And of course knot comes from knots in a rope tied to a board or bag dropped off the side of the ship to measure it's forward speed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    Sorry, I misspoke. I understand what a nautical mile is. What I don’t understand is why ULA describes both downrange distances and altitude in nautical miles when covering rocket launches.

    Kilometers are great. Used in sciencey stuff in the US and for everything in the rest of the world. Or miles / feet, which the primary audience in the US is familiar with. But nautical miles? Most people never interact with them. Not good for science and engineering communication with the general public.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    Technically the ISS isn't NASA and it has happened to them as well.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    Good thing Trump is ending the only metric highway in the USA despite pleas from locals.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    What units is the 1 above Nasa in? Is it a metric 1 or a "no public healthcare" 1?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    Gotta break a few pounds of eggs to make a meter wide omelette

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

    To be fair, an Ariane 5 rocket failed because of a float being treated as a double, or something similar. I don't remember the details, but what makes it embarrassing is that it was the result of recycling code from Ariane 4.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I don't think recycling code is embarrassing? No-one can be expected to write a new codebase from scratch for every new product or machine. That would be worse than building on top of a solid foundation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    It isn't. Never testing that it's compatible with the new hardware platform is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    Having read up on it quickly, the real issue was with a lack of tests and failure handling, so you're not wrong.
    Apparently this code wasn't even necessary to run after liftoff, yet it caused the self-destruct.
    Crazy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    If your flight computer can’t count that high You will not go to space today

    https://youtu.be/Ayu0GsrvKQA

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    "Oh I'm sorry, did you guys not use imperial when you walked on the moon?"

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)