Is the American exploration satellite 1998 really missing?

1In February, 1998, another rocket was launched, carrying a satellite to detect the weather on Mars, which was scheduled to reach the target on September 23rd, 1999.

However, this time, NASA was disappointed-the researchers were surprised to find that the satellite did not enter the scheduled orbit, but fell into the atmosphere of Mars and soon "disappeared".

Why did the experienced NASA let the satellite "go astray" this time?

After an emergency investigation, NASA officials found that the problem was actually some satellite data, and the English unit of measurement was not converted to metric-the error came from Lockheed Martin, which contracted the project.

It turns out that American enterprises, including the aerospace industry, use the English system, while the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (National Laboratory) uses the metric system. The contractor will convert the English system into metric system, so that the Jet Propulsion Laboratory can start small thrusters twice a day to adjust the course of the spacecraft. The pilot concluded that the force to start the small propeller was metric Newton. Unexpectedly, the information provided by Lockheed Martin is in pounds (1 pound, 454 grams), which leads to a slight deviation in the course of the spacecraft. Over time, finally "a little difference, a thousand miles away."

This "small mistake" of not converting the English system into the metric system has caused huge economic and other losses. For example, this satellite, which cost as much as $654.38+250 million, hit the Shui Piao!

On the surface, the "disappearance" of this satellite has certain "contingency". But there is actually a certain "inevitability". So where is this "inevitability"?

It turns out that the United States is one of the three "loners" in the world-only it, Libya and Myanmar are countries that have not abolished the English system. It can be seen that the "one country, two systems" of American weights and measures forces people to "change" all the time, and in a large number of "changes", the number of "small mistakes" will inevitably increase. On the other hand, if American weights and measures do not implement "one country, two systems", such "small mistakes" can be completely avoided.

This story clearly illustrates a seemingly simple but often overlooked philosophy: details sometimes determine success or failure. At the same time, I also saw how important it is to adopt a unified unit of measurement!

The so-called unit of measurement is the agreed reference quantity when comparing similar quantities.