Cyrus said:
A lbf is force and a slug is mass.
Chi Meson said:
Unless you're talking about a lbm which is the mass and a poundal is the force.
A slug is a rarely used non-imperial unit of mass invented in the early 1900s. The US aerospace community does use the slug, but only for moments and products of inertia. For mass, the aerospace community uses the avoirdupois pound, abbreviation lb, or lbm to be pedantically clear on the distinction between pounds-force and pounds (mass). The poundal? I don't know anyone who uses poundals.
The term "pound" used without a qualifier refers to the avoirdupois pound, 0.45359237 kilogram (exactly) -- unless of course you are talking about precious metals, in which case the term "pound" without a qualifier refers to the troy pound. A pound of feathers weighs quite a bit more than a pound of gold.
============================================
Blenton said:
Anyway $370 million to convert units? What the hell are they doing there? I would assume everything now is in digitized format, so conversion would be as simple (or simpler) than pushing a button.
Back to the main topic of this thread. A lot of the software for these new vehicles, including the flight software,
is in metric because as far as software is concerned, converting to metric is a simple matter of multiplying by the appropriate conversion factor.
The hardware is a beast of a completely different color. Converting to metric involves a lot more than simply multiplying by the appropriate conversion factor. Consider something as simple as a fastener, for example. Metric fasteners have head sizes, shaft diameters, yield strength, and lead and pitch all expressed in nice even metric steps. The same goes for imperial fasteners. Simply scaling an imperial fastener to metric units does not work because the scaled fastener does not exist.
The same concerns apply to a lot of other hardware element. Converting to metric entails a complete redesign.