re: Tell me why Imperial is better than the Metric system

quote:

---

The engineers that did it used the metric system when putting us there though

---

Correct. The link is a fascinating read. A guy from the Apollo project describes all the issues they went through.

Stories from the Apollo program by one of the engineers who worked on it.

Here is an excerpt:

With respect to units, the LGC was eclectic. Inside the computer we used metric units, at least in the case of powered-flight navigation and guidance. At the operational level NASA, and especially the astronauts, preferred English units. This meant that before being displayed, altitude and altitude-rate (for example) were calculated from the metric state vector maintained by navigation, and then were converted to feet and ft/sec. It would have felt weird to speak of spacecraft altitude in meters, and both thrust and mass were commonly expressed in pounds. Because part of the point of this paper is to show how things were called in this era of spaceflight, I shall usually express quantities in the units that it would have felt natural to use at the time.

The base 12 comment on page one nailed it. Much easier in day to day life

quote:

---

No, actually they didn't. I've held prints for flight hardware of that era in my hands. It was in inches.

---

Read this: written by someone who actually worked on the Apollo project

quote:

---

NASA used metric for the moon landings

---

They used both.

Read this.

quote:

---

They used both.

---

I never said they didn't.

Feet/inches are useful because a foot is evenly divisible by so many numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. A third of a foot is 4 inches, etc. Good luck measuring a third of a meter or 100mm repeatably.

quote:

---

quote:
No, actually they didn't. I've held prints for flight hardware of that era in my hands. It was in inches.


Read this: written by someone who actually worked on the Apollo project

---

For those who won't read it, the relevant passage is:

quote:

---

With respect to units, the LGC was eclectic. Inside the computer we used metric units, at least in the case of powered-flight navigation and guidance. At the operational level NASA, and especially the astronauts, preferred English units. This meant that before being displayed, altitude and altitude-rate (for example) were calculated from the metric state vector maintained by navigation, and then were converted to feet and ft/sec. It would have felt weird to speak of spacecraft altitude in meters, and both thrust and mass were commonly expressed in pounds. Because part of the point of this paper is to show how things were called in this era of spaceflight, I shall usually express quantities in the units that it would have felt natural to use at the time.

---

As I noted, the prints of hardware that I saw in person, and sometimes based CAD drawings on for modified equipment for STS program use, were all in English units.

Fun fact: Almost all precision balls used in bearings, even metric bearings, are inch standard sizes. Getting metric precision steel balls is very expensive, if they can be had at all, unless they coincide exactly with an English size.

Nassim Taleb defended the Imperial system in his book Anti-Fragile

quote:

---

Overview of Taleb's Argument

In this section, Taleb explores the concept of antifragility in systems and argues that traditional, organically developed systems—like the imperial system—are more robust and adaptable than artificially imposed ones like the metric system.

Key Points:

Organic Development: Taleb emphasizes that the imperial system evolved over centuries based on human proportions and practical needs. For example:
Foot: Originated from the length of a human foot.
Inch: Historically defined as the width of a human thumb.
Intuitiveness: The imperial units are often more relatable and easier to visualize because they are based on human scale.
Flexibility and Adaptability: He argues that organically developed systems can better handle real-world complexities and uncertainties.
Critique of Standardization: Taleb criticizes the metric system for being a top-down imposition that may lack the adaptability inherent in systems that have evolved naturally.

Why Taleb Prefers the Imperial System

Human Scale Reference: Measurements are connected to the human body, making them more practical in daily life.
Resilience: Systems that have withstood the test of time are considered more robust against unforeseen changes.
Antifragility: The imperial system gains from disorder by being adaptable, whereas rigid systems may break under stress.

---

quote:

---

Systems grounded in practical human experience are often superior to those designed purely from theoretical principles.

---

quote:

---

The Fahrenheit temperature moved from 30 degrees to 60 degrees in one day. He said "the temperature doubled". I tried, without success, to explain to him why he was wrong.

---

All I know is that 320 degrees Fahrenheit is exactly double 160 degrees Celsius.

And, AI thinks you are wrong. It tells me that 30 degrees Fahrenheit times 2 is 60 degrees Fahrenheit, so 60 is 30 doubled.

So much for AI being smarter than humans.

quote:

---

Wrong. See above.

---

ok