mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (03/11/89)
According to a contact at NASA, the space station as it is currently
planned is going to have a mix of English and Metric parts. This
means that they have to have two sets of tools, and other such
nonsense.
According to that contact, this was decided when Dale Myers, a former
high official at Rockwell who is now the Deputy Administrator of NASA,
upon hearing that the space station would use metric parts said
"What?!, METRIC?! - Why that's UN-AMERICAN!", and decreed that
stone-age barleycorn & King George's shoe size measurements shall be
used on the space station.
Does anyone else have any information on this outrage?
--
Mike Van Pelt Here lies a Technophobe,
Video 7 No whimper, no blast.
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp His life's goal accomplished,
Zero risk at last.macleod@drivax.DRI (MacLeod) (03/15/89)
In article <266@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >According to a contact at NASA, the space station as it is currently >planned is going to have a mix of English and Metric parts. This >means that they have to have two sets of tools, and other such >nonsense. This passes understanding. However, it does bring up an interesting issue. A month or so ago I made the heretical statement that the USA ask for technical specs for Soviet docking and fastening interfaces and adopt them as an international standard. Nobody commented on this. On second thought, though, there a third set of standards, those used by the ESA. It seems pointless to establish three separate sets of standards for simple matters that will become very important to clients building commercial space packages - different types of onboard power, different docking hardware, oddball connections, materials with dissimilar ratings and physical characteristics. Is there any move now to standardize such user-interface criteria, so that it's possible to build one probe and (in theory) fly it on whatever carrier has the best deal/time frame/ service? Michael Sloan MacLeod (amdahl!drivax!macleod)
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/16/89)
In article <4400@drivax.DRI> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: >A month or so ago I made the heretical statement that the USA ask for >technical specs for Soviet docking and fastening interfaces and adopt them >as an international standard. Nobody commented on this. On second >thought, though, there a third set of standards, those used by the ESA. >...Is there any move now to standardize >... user-interface criteria, so that it's possible to build one probe >and (in theory) fly it on whatever carrier has the best deal/time frame/ >service? Ha ha. Ho ho. You really think there are standards within NASA and ESA? It is to laugh, pretty much. The only place where anything is standardized is in places where multiple interchangeable parts absolutely have to exist, notably modules for space stations. It's not a question of reconciling three standards, it's a question of reconciling dozens. On the specific question of man-capable docking ports, things aren't so bad. There are only two or three standards for that. The US space station standard is probably the best for the users, although it's not ideal for the vehicle designers (it's big). There has been talk of international standards for manned-spacecraft docking ports, but so far it's all just talk. >It seems pointless to establish three separate sets of standards for >simple matters that will become very important to clients building >commercial space packages - different types of onboard power, different >docking hardware, oddball connections, materials with dissimilar ratings >and physical characteristics Things like power may be hopelessly irreconcilable. The US is hell-bent on its insane 20kHz power system for its space station, and nobody in their right mind will adopt that. Certainly the Soviets won't; they prefer cheap hardware that works. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (03/16/89)
In article <4400@drivax.DRI> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: >A month or so ago I made the heretical statement that the USA ask for >technical specs for Soviet docking and fastening interfaces and adopt them >as an international standard. Nobody commented on this. On second >thought, though, there a third set of standards, those used by the ESA. I didn't see that message, but it certainly sounds like a good idea. It's kind of like the IBM PC -- it may not be the best, but there are more of them out there than there are of everything else put together. And certainly the Soviets have more docking experience than everyone else put together. -- Mike Van Pelt Video 7 ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp There are no perfect power sources. There is no such thing as 100% perfect safety. There is no such thing as zero environmental impact short of the entire human race committing mass suicide.