James Oberg's Pioneering Space

>>	Aerospace Safety & Accidents
>>	Astronomy
>>	Blogs
>>	Chinese Space Program
>>	Flight to Mars
>>	Jim's FAQ's
>>	Military Space
>>	Misc. Articles
>>	National Space Policy
>>	North Korean Space Inspection
>>	Reviews
>>	Russian Space Program
>>	Space Attic
>>	Space Folklore
>>	Space History
>>	Space Operations
>>	Space Shuttle Missions
>>	Space Station
>>	Space Tourism
>>	Technical Notes
>>	Terraforming

From a March 17, 1994 weekly activity report by James Oberg to United Space Alliance "Orbit Design" Division, supporting NASA JSC's Flight Design and Dynamics (FD&D) division.

“Why not metric? -- During the course of reviewing the Space Station's FD&D Groundrules and Constraints, it became evident that there were going to be more and more trajectory-related interfaces between FD&D and metric-using international partners (Russia, now ESA, probably also Japan), along with the already-known metric users at USSPACECOM. Mr. Oberg raised the question of why, despite high-level policy pronouncements in its favor, NASA-JSC was not switching to the metric system, particularly in such critical areas as FD&D where bad conversion and user unfamiliarity lay the foundation for future operations errors. Since FD&D measures are not connected with Space Station structural measures (which can retain English measures without impacting FD&D operations), Mr. Oberg suggested that to avoid future data exchange slip-ups, FD&D should take this current but soon closing "window of opportunity" to convert all Space Station trajectory-related activities to metric.