<MSGID_1=3A387=2F22_526adb1a@fidonet.org>
From: alexander koryagin <koryagin@erec.ru>

Hi, Roy Witt!
I read your message from 25.10.2013 15:31

  RW> <skipped>
  ak>> I read some years ago that an American Martian probe crashed on
  ak>> its surface because the programmers mixed up miles and kilometers.
  ak>> It is difficult to sit on two chairs.

  RW> You got your stories mixed up with Mars 2. Mars 3 was an unmanned
  RW> space probe of the Soviet Mars program which spanned the years
  RW> between 1960 and 1973. Mars 3 was launched nine days after its twin
  RW> spacecraft Mars 2. The probes were identical spacecraft, each
  RW> consisting of an orbiter and an attached lander. Mars 2
  RW> crash-landed on the martian surface. No American mars probes have
  RW> crashed.

    I told you of NASA's Mars Climate Orbiter which crashed in 1999.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news...
article "Mars Mission's Metric Mixup"

  RW> <skipped>
  RW>>> LOL! All Tupolev had to do was mulitiply any inch dimension by
  RW>>> 25.4 and he'd have the equivalant dimension in metric.
  ak>> As I can explain it, an aircraft is made from the materials
  ak>> produced by the local industry.

  RW> And as the American SAE has found, there is a metric to SAE
  RW> equivalant or vice versa that fits the requirements. i.e. there is
  RW> very little measured weight difference between a 3mm sheet of
  RW> aluminum and a SAE sheet of 1/8th inch. Yet, one is thicker than
  RW> the other.
  ak>> The USSR industry had different metric standards.

  RW> Not a problem, if you can "sit on two chairs" at once and have the
  RW> ability to figure these things out, it's quite easy to do.

    As I said, it was a funny accusation, but some reasons were logical. 
The aircraft documentation consisted of thousands of pieces of 
engineering drawings. No AutoCad software existed at that time. So, 
there were two different consequences: if the drawings were OK, all you 
needed was just copying them, as many as you needed at your plant. The 
production could started immediately. But if every piece of drawing was 
not in the metric system and materials were different you would need to 
redraw the full documentation from the scratch. It could take months.

    Suppose you have to drill a hole 1/2 of inch. In metric system a 
worker must drill 1/2 * 2.54 = 12.7 millimeters hole -- he hasn't such 
drilling bits. So every piece of the documentation has to be not only 
recalculated, but updated in addition. It takes time and resources.

    In short, the overall cost was similar to designing a whole aircraft 
from the scratch. AFAIR, only one American (passenger) aircraft (from 
those bought by Tupolev) had actually been produced in metal.

<skipped>
  ak>> Even screws were different.
  RW> It's very easy to convert a 1/4" screw call out to a metric
  RW> equivalant. You can have one smaller and lighter, as in 6mm or you
  RW> can have one a little heavier, as in 7mm or 8mm.

    But it was not up to a worker to do such conversion. All the 
documentation had to be reworked, redrawn....

  RW> We even take your 7.62mmx39mm AK-47 cartridges and convert them to
  RW> SAE and they're made to NATO specs.

    It's no wonder. The metric system was introduced in Russia after 
1917. Before that time Russian weapon and shells were made in inches (or 
units derived from it). So, we had "line" unit = 1/10 of inch; 3 lines 
calibers is 7.62 mm.

    Of course, if Bolsheviks had started producing weaponry using the 
metric system they could not have used a lot of prerevolutionary weapon. 
So, they refused from the metric system in weapon making.

  ak>> It was not enough to change sizes, they needed to make tons of new
  ak>> documentation, taking in mind the USSR's standards; they had to be
  ak>> sure that, for instance, an aircraft rear had such a weight that
  ak>> didn't spoil the overall balance during the flight.

  RW> But the Soviets learned how to do that in a hurry when Germany
  RW> invaded your country and kicked butt, until winter set in.

    It's no wonder, Hitler was strong. However, if we tell of Europe we 
can say it had fainted in front of Hitler as a girl before a rat. ;=)

  RW> Meanwhile, the Soviets used Americn made equipment on a 'lend
  RW> lease' basis until they could get their *&%& together and make
  RW> their own. Even then, Soviet tanks, etc., where copies of American
  RW> tanks and equipment, including airplances.

    There was no need for that. Russian planes and tanks were superior 
than Americans, everyone, who has some knowledge in weaponry, knows such 
famous names as T-34 tank, Yak 3 and Yak 9 fighters. All the experts 
acknowledged that they were the best during the WW2. It's only after 
WW2, when the Americans captured fascist constructors, they managed to 
construct some intricate machinery and even landed on the Moon before 
the USSR's Lunokhod. On the modification of the rocket that bombed London.

Ah, I forgot that there was Sikorsky from Russia. ;=)

Bye, Roy!
Alexander Koryagin
fido7.english-tutor 2013
--- ifmail v.2.15dev5.4
 * Origin: NPO RUSnet InterNetNews site (2:5020/400)