Just what exactly is a G?

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
Back to temperatures. These are the useful numbers for the average person as far as temperatures. Do I need a coat, or a light jacket? Should I wear my short sleeve shirt or will I need a long sleeve one? Shorts or pants? Average person on water temp: Is it frozen, cold, cool, luke warm, hot, scalding or boiling? Who cares what the actual water temp is? If the water is less than body temp then it is cool to cold if it is more than body temp then it is warm to hot. And if it is boiling then it is boiling and I can use it to cook. (And I am likely to add salt to raise the boiling temp so it cooks better.

)

First up, you're making too big a deal out of the temperature of water. The C scale just uses that to define its 0 and 100 points, is all (and Fahrenheit is not base 10 - Celsius is). It's just a handy reference point, it doesn't mean that you have to mentally compare everything to the temperature of water to understand how hot it is.

Second, the reason we have scales (or even science) is so we don't have fuzzy subjective definitions like "hot", "cold", "lukewarm", "scalding" etc. You may not use the actual temperatures much in everyday practise, but certainly for engineering, scientific, and technical purposes it is incredibly important to numerate such quantities accurately - in some cases it could be the difference between life or death. A warning on an item that said "do not use this item when the air is kinda warmish" is utterly useless - but a warning that said "do not use at temperatures above 25 C (or however many degrees F)" is much more useful.

I personally don't understand the big deal between C and F. I personally don't like the C scale because the individual points are too far apart for an accurate reading on the temperature I am going to live with. For the normal human range of comfort the F scale works just fine. For other things, like wider variances than the extremes at which a Human is comfortable then perhaps the C scale is better. But to call something less than 0F is very cold and dangerous to go out ill prepared, however 0C is not all that bad. Human comfort is between 68F and 72F ideal temp, what is that in C about 39? 100F is uncomfortable and gets dangerous. How is that counter intuitive when it comes to normal human habitation. Seems to work well enough for me. (And about 260 million+ of us Barbarians.

Yes, and given that there are about 5 billion other people on the planet who don't use the imperial/US scale that tells you a lot . (I presume the Chinese and Indians and South Americans use metric - I know Europe and Canada does.)

Turning C into something meaningful for you. Subjective terms here are from the perspective of someone native to about 50 N latitude - northern US and UK:

Below about -20 C I think exposed flesh will freeze rapidly.
Below 0 C water will freeze.
0 - 10 C is cold. You'd definitely feel cold if you had a t-shirt and shorts.
11 - 20 C is warm. At the higher end you'd be OK in a t-shirt.
21 - 30 C is comfor

 

[Gruffty]

Practical example:

One of the medications I give patients at work is designed to work within normal body temperature range (35.5 to 37 deg C). It is a tablet that disperses in the mouth on contact with saliva with a temperature within body temperature range.

Put one of these tablets into a cup of cold water (straight from the tap) and it won't disperse. It breaks up into lumps and can clearly be seen bobbing about in the water. This is becasue the tap water is colder than the drug's operational temperature of 35.5 deg C.

 

[BetterThanLife]

My Instructors at the Russian course hated it when I used the Metric system for my height and weight. I am about 6'6" and at the time was about 220 lbs. Or 2 Meters tall and 200 Kilos. (The numbers were too simple, it was supposed to be a more demanding exercise.

)So to answer the question in Russian and Czech I use metric and in English, I use Feet and Pounds.

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
The answer to these questions can tell you a lot about our mixed up measurement systems.

What units do you give your own height in?

Feet and inches, inches, metres or centimetres?

Most Brits answer in feet and inches still... even the children who have been brought up with metric measurements for the last thirty years.

What units do you quote your own weight as?

Stones and pounds, pounds, kilograms ( )?

 

[BetterThanLife]

How do you figure Farenheight isn't baSE 10? After 68 degrees F is 69 degrees F followed by 70 degrees and 71 degrees. Looks like base 10 to me. If it was base 9 then it would go 68, 70, 71. If it was base 12 then it would go 68, 69, 6A, 6B, 70, 71. By definition it uses base 10 numbering.

If a scientist needs precise measurement of a temperature then it doesn't really mater which system you use as long as you are consistent. Further calling 100 degrees C the boiling point of water is rather imprecise. It is the boiling boint of water at sealevel at standard atmospheric pressure. It certainly isn't the boiling point of water in Denver. (Unless you are stating that the scale changes based on where you are standing at the time the reading is taken. ) It also isn't the boiling point of water with salt in it. Only the boiling point of water at standard atmosphere at precisely sea level.

The boiling point is determined by several factors, temperature being another way to do it.

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
Back to temperatures. These are the useful numbers for the average person as far as temperatures. Do I need a coat, or a light jacket? Should I wear my short sleeve shirt or will I need a long sleeve one? Shorts or pants? Average person on water temp: Is it frozen, cold, cool, luke warm, hot, scalding or boiling? Who cares what the actual water temp is? If the water is less than body temp then it is cool to cold if it is more than body temp then it is warm to hot. And if it is boiling then it is boiling and I can use it to cook. (And I am likely to add salt to raise the boiling temp so it cooks better.

)

First up, you're making too big a deal out of the temperature of water. The C scale just uses that to define its 0 and 100 points, is all (and Fahrenheit is not base 10 - Celsius is). It's just a handy reference point, it doesn't mean that you have to mentally compare everything to the temperature of water to understand how hot it is.

Second, the reason we have scales (or even science) is so we don't have fuzzy subjective definitions like "hot", "cold", "lukewarm", "scalding" etc. You may not use the actual temperatures much in everyday practise, but certainly for engineering, scientific, and technical purposes it is incredibly important to numerate such quantities accurately - in some cases it could be the difference between life or death. A warning on an item that said "do not use this item when the air is kinda warmish" is utterly useless - but a warning that said "do not use at temperatures above 25 C (or however many degrees F)" is much more useful.

I personally don't understand the big deal between C and F. I personally don't like the C scale because the individual points are too far apart for an accurate reading on the temperature I am going to live with. For the normal human range of comfort the F scale works just fine. For other things, like wider variances than the extremes at which a Human is comfortable then perhaps the C scale is better. But to call something less than 0F is very cold and dangerous to go out ill prepared, however 0C is not all that bad. Human comfort is between 68F and 72F ideal temp, what is that in C about 39? 100F is uncomfortable and gets dangerous. How is that counter intuitive when it comes to normal human habitation. Seems to work well enough for me. (And about 260 million+ of us Barbarians.

Yes, and given that there are about 5 billion other people on the planet who don't use the imperial/US scale that tells you a lot . (I presume the Chinese and Indians and South Americans use metric - I know Europe and Canada does.)

Turning C into something meaningful for you. Subjective terms here are from the perspective of someone native to about 50 N latitude - northern US and UK:

Below about -20 C I think exposed flesh will freeze rapidly.
Below 0 C water will freeze.
0 - 10 C is cold. You'd definitely feel cold if you had a t-shirt and shorts.
11 - 20 C is warm. At the higher end you'd be OK in a t-shirt.
21 - 30 C is comfor </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Tanuki]

A useful jingle that my daughter found for C:

Thirty's hot, twenty's nice,
Ten is cld and Zero's ice.

We got an indoor/outdoor thermometer and I set it to display in C -- lots of complaining at first, but we now have a much better feel for what 15 C or whatever really feels like. And my daughters have gotten very good at translating C into F for their friends.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
[QB] How do you figure Farenheight isn't baSE 10? After 68 degrees F is 69 degrees F followed by 70 degrees and 71 degrees. Looks like base 10 to me. If it was base 9 then it would go 68, 70, 71. If it was base 12 then it would go 68, 69, 6A, 6B, 70, 71. By definition it uses base 10 numbering.

OK, it's base 10 in that sense. But it's not in multiples of 10 like metric is. The F scale - as that link I posted illustrated - is clunky, arbitrary, and utterly inelegant by comparison to the C scale.

If a scientist needs precise measurement of a temperature then it doesn't really mater which system you use as long as you are consistent.

True, but then a scientist is going to use the Kelvin scale, which is equivalent to Celsius and NOT equivalent to Fahrenheit (a difference of 1 K is not the same as a difference of 1 degree F). In fact, even US scientists must use metric units in their papers (which are often published in the US by US publishers). No scientist would use non-SI units nowadays, regardless of whether they're american on not. SI is a standard used for science... EVERYONE uses it - if they don't, their papers are rejected by the journals.

Further calling 100 degrees C the boiling point of water is rather imprecise. It is the boiling boint of water at sealevel at standard atmospheric pressure.

Yes.

It certainly isn't the boiling point of water in Denver. (Unless you are stating that the scale changes based on where you are standing at the time the reading is taken. ) It also isn't the boiling point of water with salt in it. Only the boiling point of water at standard atmosphere at precisely sea level.

100 C is the boiling point of pure water at 1 atm pressure. 0 C is the freezing point of pure water at 1 atm pressure. Nobody has defined those in any other way here. Yes, the boiling point changes depending on pressure, but that doesn't change the fact that 100 C is where pure water boils at 1 atm pressure.

You seem rather unusually skeptical of a system that scientists have been using for decades now. Trust me, it works.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
OK, it's base 10 in that sense. But it's not in multiples of 10 like metric is. The F scale - as that link I posted illustrated - is clunky, arbitrary, and utterly inelegant by comparison to the C scale.

What do you mean it isn't in multiples of 10 like metric? Lets see. 98.6, 98.7, 98.8, 98.9, 99, 99.1 Hmmm looks like multiples of 10 to me as well. DO you mean Farenheight doesn't have kilo degrees? I have never heard that desigination in the C scale either. -1 KDegree C, that just doesn't work. The temperature today is 3750 centidegrees C. Hmmmmm. Can't say that works for me either.

As far as everything in SI being multiples of 10, what units of time does the metric system use? Last I knew it was still 60 seconds to a minute, 60 minutes to an hour and 24 hours to a day. (365.2425 days to a year.)

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If a scientist needs precise measurement of a temperature then it doesn't really mater which system you use as long as you are consistent.

True, but then a scientist is going to use the Kelvin scale, which is equivalent to Celsius and NOT equivalent to Fahrenheit (a difference of 1 K is not the same as a difference of 1 degree F). In fact, even US scientists must use metric units in their papers (which are often published in the US by US publishers). No scientist would use non-SI units nowadays, regardless of whether they're american on not. SI is a standard used for science... EVERYONE uses it - if they don't, their papers are rejected by the journals.</font>[/QUOTE]Not EVERYONE uses it, all scientists use K when precise measurement of scientific data is being used. That isn't everyone. That is a very small sector of society, during specific calculations. And you just said they use the Kelvin Scale for this not the Celcius scale. And while the Kelvin scale uses the same increments it isn't the same scale. Oh and since 0 degrees C is 273 degrees K how are we dealing with multiples of 10? By the way I can't see a scientist talking about the weather in degrees K. And a US scinetist is likely to talk about the weather to his date in degrees F. So not even scientists use the kelvin scale in everyday use, even though they have to use it in scientific papers. IMHO a very narrow use of a scale designed for a very narrow audience.

Now when I was in the US Army we used the Metric system for some things and Imperial system for others. (What a mess that works out to be.) Distance in Meters and Kilomaters but speed in MPH. (Because that is how it is marked on a map so our allies can read our maps, however nobody in the US Army has a good feel for how fast 80 KPH is, even though some of us know, at least intellectually that it is 50MPH.)

While I admit that it is more convient to go from cm to M to KM, than from inches, to feet to yards to miles, however that type of conversion has nothing to do with temperature.

You seem rather unusually skeptical of a system that scientists have been using for decades now. Trust me, it works.

So let the scientists use it. I am not skeptical of the system, just don't need it. Not the same thing. Decades huh? Does longevity of a system make it better? I am more than content to continue using a system that has been working just fine for centuries. For the normal human habital zone the Farenheight scale makes more sense. 0 and 100 degrees F are extremes of the Human habital zone. Most people routinely live between those numbers. Some people never live outside those numbers. The vast majority only rarely ever get more than 20 degrees outside that zone. Since I am not a scientist, the exact temperature of water holds little interest for me. The only temperatures I am concerned with is, what the weather is and the internal temperature of the food I am about to eat. (Which better be above 160 degrees F to kill bacteria, how much above doesn't really matter, unless it is burnt, nor does how much below.)

Does the precise temperature of the surface of the sun really matter to the man on the street? When man can go there and actually measure it then it may be important. If the Sun radically changes then it is important, but otherwise, to me and the average person, who isn't a scientist, one scale is as good as another. And the Farenheight scale more accurately reflects the world we live in and the temperature range we are routinely dealing with.

Oh and the Farenheight scale is just as accurate as the Celcius scale after all the formula, while convoluted, is a straight conversion, it isn't a proportional thing and there isn't some fudge factor.

Change for the sake of change isn't always good. Usually Change is neither good nor bad, just annoying.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

For normal, everyday use, Imperial units are fine, ("It's half a mile to the shops, where I want to buy a pound of sugar and a pint of milk"), which is why they've survived so long.

For anything more than that, though, metric is far better.

 

[Malenfant]

The point is that non-metric units are unlikely to be used when we go off-world. If people want to use them on Earth (largely through sheer bloodymindedness, it seems, than anything else

) then that's one thing. But given that we already map and measure everything beyond the Earth in SI units, it seems ridiculous to throw that away to use some archaic, nonsensical non-SI system.

Or are we going to have America and all its offworld colonies still insisting that it doesn't need to use the units that the rest of humanity has adopted? In the long term, one of these measurement systems has to die for the sake of compatibility and consistency, and I can tell you it's not going to be the metric system - the majority of people (ie most people outside the US, and not just scientists) on the planet use it. Also, other cultures have changed to metric from non-metric units without too much trouble and have generally been much better off for it - it can be done.

As it is, the US uses a mix anyway. Its currency is metric. Lightbulbs aren't measured in horsepower, they're measured in Watts, etc...

 

[mike wightman]

Imperial units have already been used - by NASA engineers on two Mars missions.

Shame the rest of the mission was SI based

 

[Simone]

Fahrenheit has an absolute zero based temperature system, the Rankine scale, -465 F0 = 0 absolute, which predates the Celsius/centigrade system in that regard. Tis a shame that Napoleon had to have his own private decimal measure system. Engineering did a fine job before that, and still does quite well, thank you, in Imperial units.

The English system of units has its own decimal system for the arbitrary unit of length the inch, which is no more or less arbitrary than the SI system, the length of a scribed platinum rod, alternatively, a certain number of wavelengths of light.

The chosen point for zero degrees Celsius is the freezing point of water at our standard atmosphere - why water? convenience.

why not at much higher pressure, say that of Saturn? again convenience.

All arbitrary, angels dancing on the head of a pin.

Absolute zero has meaning, whichever metric system (system of measure) (English or French, uh, System Internationale, or even my own personal favorite, the jump week(time), gee-turn (distance), and dton * density of hydrogen (mass), how you want to express derived quantities and qualities is all quite arbitrary.)

Until the Ganglia from Alpha Centauri finally decide to intervene in the Units Wars, and say "Here is how the rest of the 'verse does it, and this is how it is" use whatever system you please, and carry a calculator to translate from English to French.

gas and oil on the water, add match

sojourner, and merry solstice

 

[Andrew Boulton]

"Or are we going to have America and all its offworld colonies still insisting that it doesn't need to use the units that the rest of humanity has adopted?"

Do you need to ask?

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
OK, it's base 10 in that sense. But it's not in multiples of 10 like metric is. The F scale - as that link I posted illustrated - is clunky, arbitrary, and utterly inelegant by comparison to the C scale.

Um...F and C are both equally arbitrary systems. If you want something less arbitrary, try measuring temperature in eV.

You seem rather unusually skeptical of a system that scientists have been using for decades now. Trust me, it works.

No, he's not saying that it doesn't work -- he's saying that it's arbitrary.

 

[aramis]

All systems of measurement above the quantum level* are arbitrary. So while we could be measuring in "Valences" (distance of the electron orbit of a Hydrogen atom from the nucleus) or even in proton-diameters, we don't as a matter of convenience. Likewise, we could measure current in electrons and electrons per second, but we don't (we use derived measures). We could also measure in units of Absolute 0 to the liquifaction of Cryo-solid monadium... but again, we don't. Why? becuase such measures would be extremely large.

Why doesn't the US go Metric? Because the costs of forcing metric upon the US population far outweigh the scant few trade benefits, nor the non-reelection of the sponsoring legislators should it pass... **

* as in, you can't subdivide further than this level.
** Hyperbole, yes, but not enitrely fictional. the fear is real, but whether or not it is a valid fear is yet to be seen. Legislators, however, operate on unfounded fears all the time. See also the Patriot Act, the DMCA, and several other poorly written rapidly-passed acts.

 

[veltyen]

All systems of measurement above the quantum level* are arbitrary.

Not quite.

For velocity there is the speed-of-light.
Mass can be measured in Atomic Units.
Energy could be measured derived from these values, for example the annihalation of one Atomic Unit.
Once you have energy you have energy/mass. Which means that you can have the energy being expressed as atomic agitation/mass. (ie. temperature)

None of these measurements cover the "comfort zone" of human existance in any detail. The distances are too long, the masses too small, the energy too large.

Why doesn't the US go Metric? Because the costs of forcing metric upon the US population far outweigh the scant few trade benefits, nor the non-reelection of the sponsoring legislators should it pass...

You already have.

And a slightly more readable straight dope version of the same thing. http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_013.html

 

[BetterThanLife]

Metric absuridity. In the US certain things are metric. YOu can buy soda in either 12 oz cans, 12 oz bottles, 20 oz bottles or 2 liter bottles. (And 80% of the time the 2 liter bottle is cheaper than the 20oz bottle. Go figure.) Now beer is sold by the 12 oz bottle or can or the 40 oz bottle or can. Wine and hard liquor is required to be sold using metric values. 500ml, 750ml, 1L, 1.5L and 1.75L are the general sizes. However drinks are poured in bars and restaurants (and regulations determine how much alcohol is allowed in a drink recipe) using 1 oz, 1.5 oz and 2 oz shot glasses.

Military maps are marked strictly in metric, meters, kilometers, etc. However military vehicles have speedometers marked in MPH and speed limits, convoy speeds and road signs are all in miles and MPH. The rifle range is laid out with targets at various ranges in multiples of 50M yet we are taught to estimate range based on 1 or more football fields (At 100 yards each.) Throw in aircraft and naval vessels that measure speed in knots and we have a mess.

I guess it proves the German General's observation of the US Military as correct. "War is Chaos. And the reason that the US military is so good at war is they practise chaos on a daily basis."

Personally I think we should pick one and go from there instead of this half ass way of doing things.

But as far as extraplanetary measurements. The average distance between the earth and the sun is 93 million miles. Between the earth and the moon about 230600 miles. The Diameter of the moon is 21600 miles and US Astronauts are still the only humans to walk on the moon. We have sent probes and gotten robots working on Mars. Done close flybys of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. Are you really sure, with such a head start that English measurements won't be used? OH and the one flag that isn't the Stars and Stripes that was placed on the moon by a human, and there is only one, was the Princeton School Flag. The vast majority of the funding of the "International Space Station" comes from the NASA budget. At this rate, if we wanted to call the shots on space exploration, it looks to me like we could, since we are doing the majority of the exploration.

 

[RandyT0001]

IIRC, one of the reasons that the US populace didn't embrace the metric system was a fear that businesses would use the populace's ignorance about the conversions to cheat them out of product. For example, what was a 16 ounce can of vegtebles in the seventies would become 448 grams but the canner would probably change it to 400 grams so as to be a nice round number. "Ah hah," the people would have said, "you're trying to cheat us out of one and seven-tenths of a ounce. We won't stand for that."

Now thirty years later and the canners have slowly and quietly changed the cans from 16 ounces to 15, 14.5 or 14 ounces. It used to be an 8 ounce bag of chips, now it's sold as a 7 ounce bag of chips. But the price didn't go down even accounting for inflation. And nobody complains. Why not? Because big business and their lobbyists control this country's government which is not going to do anything about it, even if the people did complain.

Personally I think the US should go completely metric, no double labeling on products. Then I could imagine myself going 'faster' at 120 (kph) as opposed to 75 (mph) on the interstate.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
Metric absuridity. In the US certain things are metric.

Most things are not. They metric (as in SI) in a few cases, but the US mostly uses its own version of the Imperial units. Most people in the US are familiar with that, not metric.

Throw in aircraft and naval vessels that measure speed in knots and we have a mess.

Hey, it's your mess

. Though to be fair, the UK uses a similar mix (which annoys me sometimes). Canada seems to be completely metric though.

But as far as extraplanetary measurements. The average distance between the earth and the sun is 93 million miles. Between the earth and the moon about 230600 miles.

Or 150 million km and 384,400 km respectively. Which, incidentally, is how every planetary scientist (including all those American ones at JPL and NASA) refers to it as. Not in miles - that's only done for the PR to the public.

The Diameter of the moon is 21600 miles

Er, no it isn't, or we'd be in trouble

. You might have added an extra 0 there.

and US Astronauts are still the only humans to walk on the moon. We have sent probes and gotten robots working on Mars. Done close flybys of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune

Yes, and your point is?
Kinda reminds me of the time I was at LPSC (the planetary science conference in Houston), in the pre-9/11 days when they let the scientists set up their posters in the public part of the Houston Space Centre. Some old guy came up to me as I was setting mine up and asked what I was doing. I told him, and he noticed I wasn't American (I'm a Brit). He seemed surprised that non-Americans would be here, as if Americans were the only ones entitled to study this because it was mostly data sent back by NASA missions. So (with no small amount of sadistic relish, I might add) I informed him of all the Brits, Russians, Germans, French, and Japanese scientists who were at the conference and setting up here too. You should have seen the look on his face... he was utterly mortified! He left pretty quickly after that

. I had a really good chuckle about that with my compatriots later on

.

and Pluto

Um, no we haven't. Nothings flown past Pluto yet. We don't even know what the surface looks like beyond a very low resolution map from Hubble in earth orbit.

Are you really sure, with such a head start that English measurements won't be used?

Well, they're not. The only time NASA used US units resulted in the crashes of two Mars missions because they were the wrong units. Since then they've really locked their procedures to be metric only.

OH and the one flag that isn't the Stars and Stripes that was placed on the moon by a human, and there is only one, was the Princeton School Flag.

You didn't hear about the Mars 2 probe that the Soviets land on Mars in 1971 (five years before the Americans) that carried a soviet flag? Or all the Soviet Veneras, that had soviet flags on them and are still the only landers on Venus?

Yeah, the Moon's great and all. But the US ain't the be all and end all of space exploration.

The vast majority of the funding of the "International Space Station" comes from the NASA budget.[/qb]

The ISS is a white elephant anyway. The reason nobody else wants to spend on it is because they're not as stupid as the people at NASA. If you knew how much of your taxpayer money was wasted on that pile of junk (which is vastly overbudget and will probably never be able to do what it was designed to do), you'd be horrified. So again, it's not exactly something to be proud of.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
Metric absuridity. In the US certain things are metric.

Most things are not. They metric (as in SI) in a few cases, but the US mostly uses its own version of the Imperial units. Most people in the US are familiar with that, not metric. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree. Like I said, I wish we would just deal with one system the mix is nuts. Though adopting something that Napoleon decided was a good thing bothers me. After all he lost.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />and US Astronauts are still the only humans to walk on the moon. We have sent probes and gotten robots working on Mars. Done close flybys of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune

Yes, and your point is?
Kinda reminds me of the time I was at LPSC (the planetary science conference in Houston), in the pre-9/11 days when they let the scientists set up their posters in the public part of the Houston Space Centre. Some old guy came up to me as I was setting mine up and asked what I was doing. I told him, and he noticed I wasn't American (I'm a Brit). He seemed surprised that non-Americans would be here, as if Americans were the only ones entitled to study this because it was mostly data sent back by NASA missions. So (with no small amount of sadistic relish, I might add) I informed him of all the Brits, Russians, Germans, French, and Japanese scientists who were at the conference and setting up here too. You should have seen the look on his face... he was utterly mortified! He left pretty quickly after that. I had a really good chuckle about that with my compatriots later on. </font>[/QUOTE]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />OH and the one flag that isn't the Stars and Stripes that was placed on the moon by a human, and there is only one, was the Princeton School Flag.

You didn't hear about the Mars 2 probe that the Soviets land on Mars in 1971 (five years before the Americans) that carried a soviet flag? Or all the Soviet Veneras, that had soviet flags on them and are still the only landers on Venus?

Yeah, the Moon's great and all. But the US ain't the be all and end all of space exploration.

The vast majority of the funding of the "International Space Station" comes from the NASA budget.

The ISS is a white elephant anyway. The reason nobody else wants to spend on it is because they're not as stupid as the people at NASA. If you knew how much of your taxpayer money was wasted on that pile of junk (which is vastly overbudget and will probably never be able to do what it was designed to do), you'd be horrified. So again, it's not exactly something to be proud of. </font>[/QUOTE]I never said the ISS was the best way to go. I personally loved the idea of using Shuttle Fuel tanks as the basis for a space station. However as far as manned exploration, (and in reality, isn't that the whole point, to get people there?) it is, for now, the only game in town. (Like the tag line says, it isn't the best Space Station, it is the only one.) Personally I was hoping by now we would have a permament presence on the moon and the Terra High Port, ala Arthur C. Clarke, would be operational. With exploitation of the Asteroid belt being the next planned step and truly beginning over the next 20 years.

Without a decent working Space Station manned trips to the rest of the solar system are more theory than practise. The ISS isn't the end of it but it is at least a start. It would be much easier to get to and from the moon and to and from the belt from orbit than from the ground. Isn't manned exploration and eventual exploitation the whole point? After all without actually going there it is all just pretty theories, and anything outside the atmosphere that doesn't negatively impact the atmosphere and biosphere of this planet simply doesn't really matter.

Space exploration appears to hit certain positive notes with Americans more so than elsewhere. It triggers that pioneer spirit that appears almost to be programmed at the genetic level of those of us here in the States. It fires the imagination.

Note I am not attempting to state that we are the only pioneers, or that we have the only interest, just an opinion that from appearance we seem to be driven by that pioneer spirit as a culture more so than most other cultures currently inhabiting this rock we call Earth.

After all America, and especially the US was founded by the rabble rousers, the pioneers and other people of Europe that had a serious case of wanderlust. Seeking what was beyond that horizon. Perhaps it is a genetic flaw passed down through the generations, but it is a strong drive. And it hasn't had much time to get diluted, after all we have only been here for 300 years and only been a country for just over 200 years.

(What is that in SI units?

)

Gawd, talk about being off the original topic!

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Randy Tyler:

Personally I think the US should go completely metric, no double labeling on products. Then I could imagine myself going 'faster' at 120 (kph) as opposed to 75 (mph) on the interstate.

And gas would be cheaper because we would be buying it by the liter instead of the gallon. (Of course it would take 4 times as much to fill your tank, and the oil companies would be happy to let us pay 80.9 cents per liter.

)