NASA OIG: $368 Million Cost to Make Constellation Metric Compliant

So they're just going to kick the can down the road, and the cost for compliance will probably triple every ten years.

This should have been automatic immediately after that Mars probe was lost due to metric conversion errors. NASA learns nothing from its mistakes.

$368 better spent on a LAS for commercial crew to orbit.

$368 mil for metric conversion? Really? Are they f****** serious??? How many mil are these people paying for toilet seats? So I'm thinking ONE tile on the underside of a Shuttle must cost more than I make in a year. Nice. You know what? This agency ain't worth saving. Hello, Elon? How's the Falcon doing? Can you fly us to the moon ... please?

This is a really stupid waste of money. At least it's not going on entitlements.
I remember when I was in junior high school we studied the metric system over and over because the whole country was to switch to the metric system by 1976.
The bicentennial came and went and we are still one of the few countries on Earth using the out of date Imperial system.
This is disgraceful.

One more reason to flush this disaster down the circular file. Sort of goes hand-in-hand with using 3,000-year old rocket technology.

Most of this is bogus, people not wanting to switch so they throw out huge numbers. The biggest joke is test and lab equipment, which is mostly digitally controlled and can do either system of units. It's funny that ISS rejected the metric rule as well and now we are totally integrated with IP's who use metric, so it's not that big a deal.

...we are still one of the few countries on Earth using the out of date Imperial system. This is disgraceful.

Well, we're not the only ones. Liberia and Myanmar (Burma) are the only other countries that do not use SI as their official standard.

We may have gotten rid of the King, but we keep his spirit alive in our units of measure. Makes you proud to be an American!

I'm not sure this matters anymore, but surely someone did a cost benefit analysis to compare the cost of updating these systems versus building new systems. If these are flight systems, they weren't cheap, and to throw out the baby with the bathwater may not make sense if a cost case can be made. As for the price... hopefully the requirements were well thought out, this went out for proposals, and wasn't something they asked the contractor of record to do (lack of competition in anything...including manned space flight...is never good).

Given the insane number of drawings, models, etc., that actually seems cheaper then I'd expect. Also, everything would be off distances in metric, instead of being common fractions of inches.

We'd also have to relabel every tool, and every box of parts to be fully Metric. Or do expect all of the techs and mechanics to be able to do the conversion on the fly and always grab the right part?

Even if Constellation (or whatever program follows) goes entirely metric, NASA's US contractors will still use English. There will still be conversions. Moving conversions from one place to another isn't very likely to improve risk, but it can cost money.

(Note that at the root cause of the MCO failure was a lack of metric conversion at a contractual boundary. So maybe we should be keeping the conversions away from contractual boundaries instead of trying to move the conversions closer to them.)

This is not a NASA problem. This is a US problem. Expecting NASA to lead the nation in the conversion to metric is the tail wagging the dog. Or more like the flea wagging the dog.

A more apt metaphor may be the one about trying to teach a pig to sing.

Just another nail in the coffin to our Nations' leadership position in science and technology. NASA is just a symptom of a national problem of standards acceptance. Oh well, NASA will continue to hobble along despite this and we'll eventually be playing second fiddle to China, Russia, India, etc in the long run. A pitty really. Let's hope our commercial space sector can step up/step in?

Putting aside the specific issue of metrics, the IG report also reflects on the basic deficiency in decision making by NASA programs. Realize that the cost is a cost to the program, but the benefit side of the equation in a matter like this and many more, often lies outside the program, within the agency or the industry. Program managers will naturally see any “benefit” that lies outside the program of their control as suspect.

A similar situation arises when a life cycle cost decision involves a cost today in order to benefit an operational phase later. In that case the near term cost is something that is next year or soon thereafter. It’s well understood, by virtue of being literally upon the situation. It’s easy to grasp and see something up close. The benefit that lies in the future? Suspect.

As an operations center I’ve seen the same disregard for all things that lie in the future when compared to something immediate, in this budget cycle, upon us. Be aware that there are many things happening here that I’ve observed over my years.

One thing happening is personality, as some people think all matters far are just not real. Some people live their individual lives this way, and bring that mindset along to work. NASA rewards tacticians very well, as being focused, right on it, and capable of crafting tangible progress “today”. So there may even be selective pressures making decision makers more prone to see “cost” and disregard any benefit that’s far term. In one Cx exercise, this focus on cost was made explicit, when a request for ideas went out that said the candidates must reduce costs period. No idea that added costs now and decreased them later would be accepted, as there was no more money now. Benefit in this view of the world becomes “costing less” and cost-benefit analysis becomes “cost A vs. cost B” analysis (with both costs being near term paths and impacts). Personalities and selective pressures are something to think about here, I’m quite convinced, from my experiences over the years.

The far term is also suspect, meaning benefit in any analysis is suspect, and this has to do with another problem. Cost data costs money to gather. Collecting the dots means databases, and so on. Analyzing data is also a task. Connecting the dots costs money. Many programs barely tolerate collecting the dots, either on their own performance or from contractors. Why? This cost money now, to the benefit of someone else. Later when the time comes to do a cost-benefit analysis the cost in the near term has many, many eyeballs. The benefit aspect has fewer, as it’s an analytical exercise vs. being a budgetary exercise that already could be counted on with the resources used in the normal process of managing the program. Right off, the analysis is eye-balled as a cost itself, but the “cost” portion as simply part of doing business. Later the benefit analysis is suspect – again (Just as with the earlier pre-disposition). Why? Well the cost analysis is a tangible thing with “data” (from people right on it all) whereas the benefit analysis “can be anything you pencil whip”. That’s a quote from someone I got one day, implying I could make any answer sell if it’s about something ahead, years 6 through 15 in the future. Guess who wins again, cost, near term cost.

So here we are in a re-direct where the OMB web site on NASA said “Research and development to support future heavy-lift rocket systems that will increase the capability of future exploration architectures with significantly lower operations costs than current systems”. You can appreciate the shock such statements cause, being about outcomes far away, and benefits tomorrow driving decisions today. “Significantly lower operations costs” for a heavy, meaning added value, as well as costing less than Shuttle today, the Heresy! The “benefit” side of the equation surfaced finally, and here we are, debating if it’s a variable we want or not, amidst all the controversy.

$368 million: a precise number, yet. Not "about $350 million" or "about $400 million." Did the OIG question how CxP derived this number?

If you look in the summary IT's NOT NASA's FAULT! IT's the DOD! Quoting:

"We found that because the Department of Defense (DoD) has not fully embraced the metric system as the manufacturing standard in its projects, and because of the size of its contracts, DoD exerts an overriding influence on the U.S. aerospace industry. NASA officials stated that until DoD begins converting its major programs to the metric system, NASA will not be able to easily transition to the metric system due to a lack of aerospace parts designed in metric units."

This is like kids in the back seat arguing about who didn't start it.

Laughing at all of this now.
CxP is toast! How much thrust did the Ares 1x has when it hit the upper stage?
enough to cause parachute failure?
Kilostupid!

The report also mentions software, which I find vexing. The engineering programs I've written over my career have been all metric until at the very end I had to convert to "traditional units" to provide an answer. It's SI inside, that's how engineers are educated. Here is the specific quotation from the report:

"NASA officials attributed these costs to the reuse of hardware and software designs from previous flight programs that used U.S. customary units, thus requiring revisions to documentation and interface drawings."

Remove the conversions at the output of the software, make new metric drawings with revision documentation (as always), check against the old hardware, move along. Convert the models in solidworks to metric (which is it's default), done. Never have so many spent so much time to refuse to simplify and increase reliability.

The graph in the report is precious, the source of the cost numbers for the metric conversion: The Constellation Project.

No need for me to comment, this passage from the report says plenty:

"The Constellation Program’s Management Directive 030, issued December 2007, established the metric system as the standard system of measure and stated that use of the metric system was simpler, less error prone, and aligned with NASA’s international space partners. Therefore, we question the validity of the Constellation Program’s request for an exception only 2 years later on the basis that use of the metric system “adds unacceptable risk” to the Program."

No comment needed again. Quoting from the report:

"In fact, NASA’s Chief Engineer said he could not recall one denial of the numerous requests for exceptions to the requirement to use the metric system."

That NASA Engineer@KSC makes a valid point, and it's equally true in industry and government — everybody lives in "the now"; "the future" is an abstract intangible.

I've found over the years that there's another factor that's equally damaging — the "Us and Them" syndrome. As an example, years ago I worked as a video design engineer for a successful, long-established company. At this company it took 6 weeks to schedule a production run, but it took 17 weeks! to cancel a production run.

Why? Bottom line: if a run was canceled, the "wasted" money was on Production's books, even though they didn't order the cancellation. To keep this from happening, Production made it impossible (or at least ridiculous) to cancel a run.

The company as a whole, down the line, would lose much more money than if the run had been canceled, but Production's books always looked good.

Today versus tomorrow; Us versus them; it's all part of the same self-centered mentality, but how do you turn things around?

Change requires a willingness to change, which requires at least a partial understanding of the "bigger picture," which requires making an effort; but it's so much easier to keep sitting in front of the TV, melting your brain, and reinforcing the status quo.

I wish I had an answer.

How many posters to this site actually "think" in metric units? I'd venture to say very few.

The more things change....
In 1988 I put in a suggested change at the Space Station Freedom Program Reqts Review (top level reqts review) to have Freedom comply with Federal Law to go metric. The change (RID for those in human space flight programs) went all the way to the Program Manager where it was rejected. Argument then was that it was too expensive for our contractors to retool. Nothing's changed. And until the DoD starts changing (as noted by the OIG), it's not going to happen. NASA builds one of a kind. The DoD builds 100's/1000's. Go pick on them!!!

Nice answer. It convinces me that the solution is a policy decision, not a better cost-benefit analysis.

NASA definitely would benefit (a little) from going all-metric, because it would streamline international collaboration. Companies might benefit also (a little), being able to compete overseas-- if it weren't for ITAR as a barrier (works like a tariff) and DoD as a backward pull. DoD has little/no reason to change because there's little/no international collaboration.

So someone just needs to decide, and make it so.

I can only speak for myself. I have done my best to think in metric. Back in 1975 I challenged others in my High School Class (who were having fits about metric conversion) to go outside and walk 1 mile, 500 yards or 400 feet or 6000 inches. I argue you don't really "think" in the current "system" of units. You just think you do.

I was able to use metric (before my work was sent to China) for 5 years. My mind now recoils when I have to use non-metric units. I have survived by doing engineering consulting and have refused to compute, or make drawings that are not metric. Strangely not one aerospace company (mostly sub-contractors) has complained so far. The commercial companies I have as clients(what few are left)also have no problem with my all metric insistence. When board houses or machine shops complain "they just can't think in metric, I have no `feel' for it," I tell them "thanks, if you have a problem with metric and can't handle it, I will go elsewhere." My engineering work is 100% metric and I have made far less mistakes by not doing any conversion. My software to hardware is seamless in metric. It was not previously.

I purchased a GPS unit about a year ago. I immediately set it for meters. I was amazed at how quickly I could get an idea of 100 meters, 200 meters (about the distance between stop lights) and then Kilometers. My father has the same unit, but set to miles and yards. As I sat and listened to it it would switch from miles to tenths of miles to yards. That was hard to think in.

Sherlock, I suspect you have worked in aerospace all of your career if you are that certain that few posters or engineers think in metric. Read the report that Keith kindly provided from the IG. Commercial companies are named in it as using metric. Pseudo-government agencies like Lockheed Martin etc use our "traditional" units, which by the way were defined in terms of metric in 1958 if I recall correctly.

I for one do not "think" in 7000 grains of wheat in a pound, or in chains for road construction (yes that is still the "standard" in our enlightened country) or that because we had problems with rationalizing our mile with other units we had to give up 5000 feet in mile and go to 5280 a long, long time back. Caliber still makes sense for guns in the military? I find it much easier to think in metric, and estimate in metric. Continuing to use mils, inches, yards, miles is part of the "us and them" provincial Hillbilly mindset of Americans (yes I'm an American). We are the only ones in the world who insist on this "ethnic purity." See the map in the report. It is costing us dearly, but non-engineers (the majority of Americans) are blind to the problem and recoil at any suggestion that they have to learn anything different. Yes, I do think in metric, and you should too--because it's easier.

These kinds of policy decisions come with a pricetag that should be justified by more than a few benefits. It doesn't seem worth the trouble in an industry where all numbers should be triple checked anyhow.

...and if constellation is going away, its a moot point. Just mandate that any new commercial supplier use metric (to include ULA/USA) as the exclusive standard.
I'm sure if they haven't already changed over, they wont take issue with absorbing the costs for doing so.

Uhm, I preferentially think in metric units, and I'm 'merican. Sadly Imperial units and English Engineering units are still around. It's very sad. SI units are beautifully simple. Imperial units? There's nothing beautiful, graceful, or appealing at all about Imperial units. The only thing that Imperial units have going for them is that they aren't English Engineering units. Pound-mass and Pound-force? Give me a break. US industry ought to be ashamed of itself. I worked for an American defense contractor, for a bit, on whose drawings I not so infrequently saw SI and Imperial units mixed!

It doesn't matter. They'll still mix up meters & kilometers.

The future of space is international cooperation. Standards aren't optional.

Switch now or switch when the Mars mission is built and the cost is much higher. Either way you'll switch