NASA spent $327.6 million on its Mars Surveyor ’98 programme: the Mars Climate Orbiter and its sister craft, the Mars Polar Lander, launches included. The orbiter, a spacecraft of roughly $125 million, was lost on September 23, 1999, when it plunged far too deep into the Martian atmosphere. The cause was a piece of ground software called SM_FORCES. Supplied by Lockheed Martin, the spacecraft’s builder, it reported thruster data in pound-force seconds while the navigation team at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory used it expecting newton-seconds. The discrepancy was a factor of 4.45. Over months of flight, the accumulated error placed the spacecraft on a trajectory that brought it too close to Mars, and it was never heard from again.
This story gets told as a cautionary tale about unit conversion, a costly reminder that engineers should check their inputs. It also works as an invoice: the bill issued whenever two systems that cannot agree on a standard are forced to transact with each other. In 1999 the world’s most technically sophisticated space agency was operating across two incompatible measurement frameworks in a single mission, inside a division that dates from the 1790s. It was established at a specific political moment and has been kept in place ever since by political choices that carry a running cost. The metre, usually celebrated as a triumph of rational standardisation, has for over two hundred years been used as an instrument of state power, and occasionally turned back on the state that wielded it.
The Fraud of Neutrality
Before 1790, France was a measurement catastrophe. By one historian’s count, some 250,000 different units of weights and measures were in use across the country: incompatible local standards that varied from town to town and from trade to trade. The toise measured different lengths in Paris than in provincial capitals. The boisseau, for grain, shifted depending on who owned the mill. The arpent, for land, could differ by more than a third across regions. The incompatibility was also a mechanism of economic control. Lords who controlled local standards controlled local exchange, which made it easy for those who set the standards to extract from those who depended on them.
The National Constituent Assembly’s decision to commission a new, universal measurement system was therefore an explicitly political project, one that borrowed scientific legitimacy to accomplish something the Revolution had already decided was necessary. On March 9, 1790, Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, then Bishop of Autun, presented a proposal to the Constituent Assembly calling for an invariable standard: universal, natural, reproducible, verifiable everywhere. The Academy of Sciences, with Condorcet as its Permanent Secretary, was tasked with the specifics. Their choice was ingenious and politically loaded. The metre would be defined as one ten-millionth of the arc of the meridian through Paris, from the North Pole to the Equator.
The metre was presented as nature’s unit, merely discovered by France. The phrase associated with the project, “À tous les temps, à tous les peuples” (for all time and for all people), was attributed to Condorcet and struck as the legend on a commemorative medal in 1840. The metre, so the claim went, answered to no monarch, no city, no commercial interest. It was grounded in the geometry of the planet itself.
In practice it put the authority of French science where the king’s had been, and kept the standard on French territory. The Assembly had first invited Britain’s Parliament and Royal Society to help define the new unit; when that overture came to nothing, France went ahead alone. To define the metre, two astronomers, Delambre and Méchain, set out in 1792 to measure the meridian arc between Dunkirk and Barcelona, and the definitive platinum metre was deposited in the Archives in 1799. Thomas Jefferson identified the problem. He had served as US Minister to France, had reworked his own measurement proposal in response to Talleyrand’s, and corresponded with Condorcet on the subject. “The element of measure adopted by the National Assembly,” Jefferson wrote to William Short in July 1791, “excludes, ipso facto, every nation on earth from a communion of measure with them; for they acknowledge themselves, that a due portion for admeasurement of a meridian crossing the 45th. degree of latitude and terminating at both ends in the same level, can be found in no country on earth but theirs.” He had proposed basing a US decimal system on the seconds pendulum at 45° latitude — a measurement that could be taken anywhere along that parallel, in either hemisphere. When the French chose the meridian over the pendulum, they chose a standard only France could certify: other nations, Jefferson complained, would have to trust French measurements or send their own people into France to check them. His refusal, often put down to American stubbornness, rested on a sovereignty argument: the metre, whatever its claims to universality, required other nations to accept French authority over its verification.
By imperial decree in February 1812, Napoleon introduced the mesures usuelles, a compromise system retaining metric relationships but using traditional French names. A law of 1837 revoked it and restored the pure metric system from 1840. The partial reversal is typically read as a populist concession to peasants who resisted decimalisation. It also shows that even a French government that had imposed the metric system by law found the political cost of full metrication worth managing. If a universal rational standard only required abandoning irrational habit, Napoleon’s France, with armies occupying much of Europe, would not have softened its position in response to peasant inconvenience.
The Diplomacy of the Standard
In the nineteenth century the metric system spread through political alignment, colonial-era modernisation and the strategic calculations of newly sovereign states rather than through rational persuasion. Some of the most revealing early cases come from Latin America. Chile adopted metric in 1848, Mexico in 1857, Brazil in 1862. These were newly independent states choosing their measurement systems as part of a broader choice about what they intended to move away from. The pre-metric colonial systems of Portuguese and Spanish America were associated with the extractive machinery of the colonial period. Adopting the French decimal system signalled modernising ambition, pressed by the engineers, scientists and statisticians who moved in international professional networks; the motives differed from country to country, and Brazil made the change under an emperor. Chile went metric a year before Spain did, in 1849, so its choice rejected the old standard rather than following Spain’s new one.
In Brazil, an imperial law of June 1862 mandated metric adoption across the empire, allowing a decade for the transition, and when the new units became compulsory in 1873, resistance followed. The Quebra-Quilos revolts of 1874 to 1875, which began in Paraíba and spread to Pernambuco, Alagoas and Rio Grande do Norte, saw rural communities destroy newly introduced metric scales and weights. For the peasants of the northeast, already squeezed by drought, collapsing sugar and cotton prices, a new market tax and a hated military recruitment law, the metric kilogram was one more instrument of an extractive elite whose legitimacy they were already contesting.
Japan signed the Metre Convention in 1885, in the middle of the Meiji era, when a governing elite that had concluded survival required rapid alignment with Western institutional forms was directing a programme of controlled Westernisation. Signing the Convention and receiving prototype standards from the BIPM in 1890 belonged to the same programme that produced a Western-style constitution, military organisation and industrial law.
India’s trajectory carries the logic into the decolonisation era. The Standards of Weights and Measures Act, passed in 1956, was phased in over the following years, and metric weights became compulsory nationwide in 1962. British imperial units had been the official measures of the Raj, layered over a patchwork of regional Indian units. Adopting metric was part of the same programme that replaced rupee fractions with decimal coinage in 1957. Elsewhere in the British world, metrication followed London rather than breaking with it: Britain itself committed to going metric in 1965, Canada and Australia began converting in the 1970s, and South Africa, which had started planning in 1967, declared the change complete in 1977.
The Metre Convention gave this spread its institutional form. On May 20, 1875, seventeen nations signed the treaty in Paris, creating the International Bureau of Weights and Measures and housing it at the Pavillon de Breteuil in the Parc de Saint-Cloud, just outside the city. The process had begun under Napoleon III. An International Metre Commission first met in August 1870, weeks after the Franco-Prussian War broke out, but the work was completed in the war’s shadow. France had been humiliated in 1870 to 1871: it lost Alsace-Lorraine, owed five billion francs in indemnity, and watched a Prussian-led German empire proclaimed at Versailles. The reconvened commission of 1872 and the conference of 1875 let the Third Republic keep the world’s scientific standards on French soil, even as their custody passed from the French state to an international bureau.
The American Exception
The United States did try to convert to the metric system, and it could let the attempts fail because no trading partner was large enough to make it pay for failing. The Metric Conversion Act, signed by President Gerald Ford in December 1975, committed the country “to coordinate and plan the increasing use of the metric system” — and then explicitly made all conversion voluntary. The United States Metric Board was established to coordinate metrication, and abolished by the Reagan administration in 1982. The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 rewrote that policy, designating the metric system “the preferred system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce” and requiring each federal agency to use it “to the extent economically feasible by the end of the fiscal year 1992.” The qualifier acknowledges that conversion has real costs. Deferring them indefinitely is easier for an economy whose trading partners will absorb the interface costs to keep access to its market.
When Japan joined the Metre Convention in 1885, it was buying a seat in an international system on terms its members had already set, though metric became compulsory for most trade in 1959 and for land and buildings in 1966. When India legislated metrication in 1956, it was removing a colonial instrument while joining a global trade system that operated in metric. Myanmar’s announcement of metric conversion in 2013 answered export markets priced in SI units. In each case, the smaller actor absorbed the conversion cost because staying outside the metric world was more expensive than entering it. The United States arrived at a different answer: its domestic market was large enough, and its international partners dependent enough on access to that market, that much of the conversion cost could be pushed onto others.
The $327.6 Million Invoice
The Mishap Investigation Board traced the loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter to a piece of ground software called SM_FORCES. Supplied by Lockheed Martin, it reported thruster performance data in pound-force seconds. The trajectory software at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory received this data expecting newton-seconds, the SI unit mandated by the mission's software interface documentation. One pound-force second equals 4.45 newton-seconds.
The discrepancy accumulated over nine months of flight. The SM_FORCES output fed into a file called AMD (Angular Momentum Desaturation). JPL trajectory modellers assumed the AMD data had been converted to metric before it reached them, but it had not been. The spacecraft's closest approach to Mars was approximately 57 kilometres above the surface, against a planned insertion altitude of 226 kilometres. That was far below the 80-kilometre minimum the spacecraft could survive: the orbiter was destroyed in the atmosphere or, at best, skipped back out into orbit around the Sun. The Board found that the navigation team had noticed the trajectory discrepancies months earlier but raised them only informally, by e-mail, rather than through JPL's formal Incident, Surprise, Anomaly reporting process.
The failure was not only a unit-conversion failure. A Software Interface Specification did require metric units; what was missing was any check that the contractor's software actually followed it. It was the predictable outcome of two organisations operating in the same divided measurement system, each making locally rational assumptions, with no verification step forcing them to confirm which system they were in.The software ran for nine months in breach of a project specification that demanded newton-seconds, and the breach went uncaught because checking it was nobody’s job. Behind that gap lay the condition the law had left in place. Federal policy directed NASA to use metric where it was economically feasible; the mission’s own specification demanded it outright; the contractor’s engineers still worked in customary units, as most of American aerospace did. The agency and the contractor were not knowingly at odds. They were two entities in the same divided system, each making locally rational decisions, until those decisions cost NASA a $125 million orbiter and left a $327.6 million programme without it.
Myanmar and Liberia have both pledged to go metric, Myanmar in 2013 and Liberia in 2018, because for small trading economies staying outside the metric world is expensive. Myanmar’s effort stalled after the 2021 coup, while Liberia has set up a new national standards authority. The United States can afford not to, and the cost of its refusal falls on everyone who must reconcile inch-based and metric engineering drawings or stock dual-specification components, American suppliers included.
The three-countries framing, the claim that only the US, Myanmar and Liberia have not adopted metric, gets the arithmetic wrong and the analysis backwards. NIST calls it a myth: all three recognise the SI, metric has been legal in the United States since 1866 and its preferred system for trade since 1988, and American customary units have been defined in metric terms since 1893. What the three share is the absence of a mandatory metric law, and even that absence means opposite things: for Myanmar and Liberia it marks a transition not yet finished, while the United States has made metric its preferred system but left conversion voluntary.
Standards as Toll Infrastructure
The closest parallel to the metric case comes from money, where the issuer of the standard currency can make every other country pay to interface with it. Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, then France’s Finance Minister, named that advantage in the 1960s: “l’exorbitant privilège”, the exorbitant privilege of the dollar’s reserve currency status. Because the dollar was the medium of international trade, the United States could run balance-of-payments deficits that would be catastrophic for any other country, since other central banks held their reserves in dollars and absorbed the costs of depending on another country’s monetary policy. President de Gaulle pressed the point at his press conference of February 4, 1965, calling for a return to the gold standard while France converted its dollar reserves into gold — a calculated challenge to the Bretton Woods architecture the US had constructed around its own currency.
The dollar and the metre work the same way: whoever issues the standard that others must use collects a toll on every transaction that crosses into it, and the toll outlasts shifts in the military and economic strength that first established it.
The World Trade Organization and the International Organization for Standardization are attempts to manage this dynamic through multilateral rules, and the metric case marks their limit: WTO rules discipline how members write technical regulations, and ISO standards bind only once someone adopts them, so neither obliges a large economy to change the units its industry works in. The United States’ bifurcated position, with federal agencies directed to use metric in procurement where feasible and the private sector keeping customary units, exploits that structural position: participate in the international system sufficiently to avoid friction, while allowing domestic industry to continue in the standard that suits its existing infrastructure.
The system was meant to escape the toll-extraction logic of feudal measurement, and the meridian was chosen because it was universal; “for all time and for all people” was the stated ambition. But the meridian ran through Paris, the prototype metre and kilogram were housed in France, and the BIPM was established at the Pavillon de Breteuil in the Parc de Saint-Cloud. For the first three-quarters of a century of its existence the system served French authority; since 1875 France has hosted, and drawn prestige from, an international bureau it no longer controls.
The 2019 redefinition of the International System of Units, which took effect on the anniversary of the Metre Convention, is the most serious attempt yet to achieve what the original project claimed. The kilogram was redefined in terms of the Planck constant, a value inherent in the structure of the universe. The ampere was tied to the elementary charge, the kelvin to the Boltzmann constant, the mole to the Avogadro constant. No physical artefact can any longer drift, be stolen, or require a trip to Sèvres to verify. The metre had already traded its platinum-iridium bar for an atomic wavelength in 1960 and then for the speed of light in 1983. It is a relationship between the speed of light and a unit of time, measurable in any sufficiently equipped laboratory on the planet.
The Accruing Interest
A kilogram that resides nowhere cannot be seized or controlled through custody of an object. But the institutions that govern its definition (the BIPM, the CGPM, the CIPM) have their address in Sèvres, their budget in euros and their legitimacy in the treaty of 1875. The supreme authority is the General Conference, where delegates of the member states vote; France hosts it and does not rule it. Pointing measurements at the Planck constant settled what a kilogram is and left the question of who maintains and adjudicates the world’s standards with the same treaty body that has held it since 1875.
The metre now sits inside the tolerances of every precision-manufactured component and the legal definitions of every country that has adopted SI. On the night of September 23, 1999, the loss of a single orbiter wrote $125 million, inside a $327.6 million programme, onto the invoice for a divided system that had been accruing interest since 1799.
Gen AI Disclaimer
Some contents of this page were generated and/or edited with the help of a Generative AI.
Media
Key Sources and References
Alder, Ken. The Measure of All Things: The Seven-Year Odyssey and Hidden Error That Transformed the World. Free Press, 2002.
BIPM. “Metre Convention.” https://www.bipm.org/en/metre-convention
BIPM. “The International System of Units.” https://www.bipm.org/en/measurement-units
BIPM. “2019 Revision of the SI — Review in Metrologia.” https://www.bipm.org/en/-/2019-review-metrologia-si
BIPM. “Historical information.” https://www.bipm.org/en/historical-information
Câmara dos Deputados (Brazil). “Lei nº 1.157, de 26 de junho de 1862 — Publicação Original.” https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/leimp/1824-1899/lei-1157-26-junho-1862-555244-publicacaooriginal-74401-pl.html
CNN. “Metric mishap caused loss of NASA orbiter.” September 30, 1999 (archived). https://web.archive.org/web/20191024152139/http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/index.html
CommonLII. “Standards of Weights and Measures Act 1956 (India).” https://www.commonlii.org/in/legis/cen/num_act/sowama1956324/
Cornell Legal Information Institute. “15 U.S. Code § 205b — Declaration of policy” (with amendment notes). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/205b
Eichengreen, Barry. Exorbitant Privilege: The Rise and Fall of the Dollar and the Future of the International Monetary System. Oxford University Press, 2011.
Encyclopedia Virginia. “Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Nicolas de Condorcet (August 30, 1791).” https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/letter-from-thomas-jefferson-to-nicolas-de-condorcet-august-30-1791/
Foreign Affairs. “Exorbitant Pillage” (review). https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/exorbitant-pillage-lael-brainard
Founders Online, National Archives. “Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 28 July 1791.” https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-20-02-0339
Hanley, Anne G. “Men of Science and Standards: Introducing the Metric System in Nineteenth-Century Brazil.” Business History Review, Vol. 96, No. 1 (Spring 2022). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007680521000374
HISTORY.com. “Treaty of Frankfurt am Main ends Franco-Prussian War.” https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/may-10/treaty-of-frankfurt-am-main-ends-franco-prussian-war
IEEE Spectrum. “Why the Mars Probe Went Off Course.” 1999. https://spectrum.ieee.org/why-the-mars-probe-went-off-course
INA. “Conférence de presse du 4 février 1965.” Charles de Gaulle: paroles publiques. https://fresques.ina.fr/de-gaulle/fiche-media/Gaulle00105/conference-de-presse-du-4-fevrier-1965.html
Jordan Center for the Advanced Study of Russia, NYU. “How the World Came to Use the Metric System, Part II.” https://jordanrussiacenter.org/blog/how-the-world-came-to-use-the-metric-system-part-ii
Kotobank. “尺貫法 (Shakkanhō)” (Heibonsha, Shogakukan Nipponica, Britannica Japan entries). https://kotobank.jp/word/%E5%B0%BA%E8%B2%AB%E6%B3%95-76054
LNE / Réseau National de la Métrologie Française. “The historical evolution of units.” https://metrologie-francaise.lne.fr/en/metrology/history-units
Liberia Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “Daily Media Summary, 25 May 2018.” https://mofa.gov.lr/node/5691
Metric Views. “Mesures usuelles: An Anniversary Remembered.” 2012. https://metricviews.uk/2012/02/17/mesures-usuelles-an-anniversary-remembered/
Metric Views. “Metric in Myanmar – an update.” 2018. https://metricviews.uk/2018/02/08/metric-in-myanmar-an-update/
Monticello / Thomas Jefferson Foundation. “Talleyrand-Périgord, Proposition… sur les poids et mesures” (Sowerby catalogue of Jefferson’s library). https://tjlibraries.monticello.org/transcripts/sowerby/IV_58.html
NASA/JPL. “Mars Climate Orbiter Arrival Press Kit.” September 1999. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press_kits/mcoarrivehq.pdf
NASA. “Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation Board Phase I Report.” November 10, 1999. https://llis.nasa.gov/llis_lib/pdf/1009464main1_0641-mr.pdf
National Geographic. “How the French Revolution Created the Metric System.” https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/history-magazine/article/french-revolution-toppled-king-forged-metric-system
National Metrology Institute of Japan (AIST). “Metre Convention.” https://unit.aist.go.jp/qualmanmet/nmijico/en/metric/
NIST. “Busting Myths about the Metric System.” Taking Measure blog, 2020. https://www.nist.gov/blogs/taking-measure/busting-myths-about-metric-system
NIST. “U.S. Metrication Frequently Asked Questions.” https://www.nist.gov/pml/owm/metric-si/us-metrication-frequently-asked-questions-faqs
NIST. “Metric Policy.” https://www.nist.gov/pml/owm/metric-si/metric-policy
Pesquisa FAPESP. “Revolt against the Weighing Scale.” https://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/en/revolt-against-the-weighing-scale/
SEAsia. “Why Myanmar rejects the world’s common measuring system.” June 30, 2026. https://seasia.co/2026/06/30/why-myanmar-rejects-the-worlds-common-measuring-system
The Conversation. “150 years ago, the Metre Convention determined how we measure the world.” 2025. https://theconversation.com/150-years-ago-the-metre-convention-determined-how-we-measure-the-world-a-radical-initiative-for-the-time-252108
UNESCO Memory of the World. “Introduction of the Decimal Metric System, 1790–1837.” https://media.unesco.org/sites/default/files/webform/mow001/france_decimal_metric_system.pdf
US International Trade Administration. “Liberia – Standards for Trade.” 2024. https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/liberia-standard-trade
US Metric Association. “Adoption of the Decimal Metric System of Weights and Measures by Country.” https://usma.org/adoption-of-the-decimal-metric-system-of-weights-and-measures-by-country
US Metric Association. “History of the United States Metric Board.” https://usma.org/laws-and-bills/history-of-the-united-states-metric-board
US Metric Association. “Metric Convention of 1875.” https://usma.org/laws-and-bills/metric-convention-of-1875
US Metric Association. “Metrication in Other Countries” (India, Japan, Commonwealth). https://usma.org/metrication-in-other-countries
