I get that 'murica is too stubborn to go full metric, but can't we at least start switching from "Imperial (Metric)" to "Metric (Imperial)" in the popular science media?
For what it's worth, using the term "'Murica" in your post comes across as demeaning, and is thus inappropriate for HN.
Given that the image is a product of an American-led project, it seems perfectly reasonable (however unfortunate for the scientific community at large) that standard American units would be used to describe it.
As an American, I think the use of imperial units on nasa.gov is what's demeaning. The term 'murica satirically represents the mindset that led to our rejection of the metric system.
Actually the International System of Units (SI), the modern form of the metric system, is preferred for many uses by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Don't worry about the 'Murrica. I'm sure he's from one of those 'Urop startups we're hearing so much about....
:^)
On topic I'm pretty sure NASA uses metric units, after they had that one launch in the 90's that messed up do to a conversion error between metric and imperial.
NASA used metric units before and after, and they were right there in the spec. The problem was their contractors at Lockheed using some other units instead.
> however unfortunate for the scientific community at large
Why is it unfortunate? What difference does it make? The units are completely unimportant. Units are a completely arbitrary thing, it's quite irrelevant what you use as long as you know what you are using.
You will never find a real scientist complaining about them, you convert to whatever is easiest for your task and move on. The only people who complain about units are those for which the units make no difference - like the person who you replied to. If those units said any other number would it make event the tiniest bit of different to him? No it would not. That picture could say 6km, or 6leagues and it would make zero difference to him.
It's a form of bikeshedding - people won't talk about anything important because that's too complicated. But the units are easy and make you seem like you are "in the know".
But actually it does not do that, all it does is let everyone else know you have nothing more worthwhile to contribute.
"Why is it unfortunate? What difference does it make? The units are completely unimportant. Units are a completely arbitrary thing, it's quite irrelevant what you use as long as you know what you are using."
Funnily enough, half of my family are agricultural scientists and often lament the difference between how yield experiments are measured in the US are somewhat incompatible with those from Europe (and likely much of the world). To be fair, this is beyond just "units" - in the US, yield is usually measured by volume, while elsewhere by weight. The two are pretty difficult to convert between, as the weight of a bushel is both dependent on what specific produce it is, as well as its water content. This leads to some loss of collaboration between the two camps.
Note taken. I should clarify that the "however unfortunate" statement wasn't necessarily a personal opinion, but rather a response specifically to the original poster's opinion.
Better-worded, what I meant was 'irrespective of the standards followed by the scientific community'.
Phil 'Bad Astronomer' Plait says the mountains are made of water-ice, the plains of nitrogen-ice [1]: "Pluto is so cold water ice is hard as rock, and can form mountains thousands of meters tall. The bright plain was probably lower elevation terrain which filled with nitrogen, which is much less rigid than water at these temperatures. It can flow like glaciers do on Earth. So what you’re seeing there is a shoreline! It really looks like one, too, with the nitrogen ice meeting the highlands at a “constant sea level”."
