No hate..just curios..why did NASA decide to take the Omega Speedy over Rolex ?

[Old Expat Beast]

Daytona wasn't automatic till 1988. Seiko released the first auto chronograph in 1969 and that was first used in space in 1973.

[MILGAUSS88]

Originally Posted by TheVision

Was it the hand winding on the speedy that made more sense up in space?

An automatic chronograph was not released until 1969, and Rolex would not offer an automatic chronograph until another 20 years.

[MILGAUSS88]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Not all watches mind you.
Keep in mind that watches had glass crystals before polymers/plastics were even thought of.
Take my Grandfather's pocket watch from 1911 for example

Plastic crystals were standard on wristwatches at the time.
Could still find glass crystals on dress watches like a Patek.

But a Rolex, no way.

[Dirt]

Personally, i have had more problems with the Auto wind mechanism on any and all of my watches.
In the fullness of time we can see that an Auto winder could be a potential weakness in that application if it recieved a serious knock and it was a key component of their kit due to the added complexity.

Perhaps it was a fluke that they didn't actually speak to, or single out Auto winders for special mention in the wording for the original specs
Most coincidental.

With all watches under serious consideration and they state that manual winding capability is one of the key requirements

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by MILGAUSS88

Plastic crystals were standard on wristwatches at the time.
Could still find glass crystals on dress watches like a Patek.

But a Rolex, no way.

Quite right

[JRell]

Because NASA was on the Rolex wait list and couldn’t get one in time before blast off.

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by brandrea

Nothing humble about that my friend. Arguably has the “better” movement

I submit the 321





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[0nly5iv3Digits]

It simply outperformed all the other watches chosen for testing, including Heuer and Rolex.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by fskywalker

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WatchGuy1966]

Originally Posted by TheVision

Just watched "First Man" movie on Netflix last night and loved the history and the moon landing bit....tons of camera shots for the speedy as well.

Just curious..what made NASA choose the omega speedy as the moon watch over Rolex when all the popular models like daytona, Explorer, sub, gmt were readily available in 1960s? Was it the hand winding on the speedy that made more sense up in space?

I've owned several Omega in the past (smp old and current gen, planet ocean, Aquaterra) and love the brand ...I had to sell most of it to fund my sub date.

Cheers.

There are probably more published articles on the Speedmaster than any other watch in existence. A quick google on your question "what made NASA choose the omega speedy as the moon watch" results in hundreds of pages of results.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by WatchGuy1966

There are probably more published articles on the Speedmaster than any other watch in existence. A quick google on your question "what made NASA choose the omega speedy as the moon watch" results in hundreds of pages of results.

True.
But no mention of what is clearly the most important factor.
I reckon it's the best kept secret since the studio filming of the Apollo XI moonwalk. Just in case mind you

[padi56]

Originally Posted by TheVision

Just watched "First Man" movie on Netflix last night and loved the history and the moon landing bit....tons of camera shots for the speedy as well.

Just curious..what made NASA choose the omega speedy as the moon watch over Rolex when all the popular models like daytona, Explorer, sub, gmt were readily available in 1960s? Was it the hand winding on the speedy that made more sense up in space?

I've owned several Omega in the past (smp old and current gen, planet ocean, Aquaterra) and love the brand ...I had to sell most of it to fund my sub date.

Cheers.

Omega yes it too has a fine movement but then manual wind but only Buzz and Armstrong are the only people to say what the first watch on the moon was. IMO it was most likely a speedy with the Cal 321,there were other readings that a Waltham and a Rolex GMT were used as a back up.But everything I have read my only conclusion is that the Omega Speedmaster had the Cal 321 movement on the lunar landing based on the Lemania 27CHRO-C12 and the only true moon watch.

And its documented that Jack Swigert's wore a Rolex GMT-Master in the main lunar orbit ship, plus there was some kind of Bulova watch/clock somewhere in the spacecraft, but the claim that a Bulova time piece was on the Moon IMHO is little more than pure marketing by them. What I have read Aldrin's speedmaster was the first on the lunar surface, so its logical that he could have worn the same watch he had issued for the Gemini X11, IMO possibly a 1966 speedy when they first put professional on dial REF ST105012, perhaps the later 1968 ST 145.012 model was left in the ship as a back up timer for computer. But one of the most important things on board the Apollo lunar mission were the mechanical watches no matter what the brand.

Speedmaster's relationship with outer space,began when they went to Corrigans shop a Texas dealer in 1961.And the NASA buyer bought 5 different brands of chronographs and some failed the NASA test, the Omega Speedmaster was passed mainly IMHO because it was manual wind. NASA tested a number of other Speedmasters in the 1960s prior to Gemini Apollo flight. All these watches were before they changed to the Cal 861 movement, NASA bought another large quantity of Speedmasters in the later 60s,and in 1966 Omega added the word Professional to the speedy. It has been said that Neil Armstrong,had a problem with his watch,and did not wear one on the moons surface. I believe Aldrin's watch was lost or most probably stolen in transit somewhere after the mission.But lets remember this fact today, your average smart phone or home computer is several hundred times more powerful than the one used on the moon mission so a simple mechanical watch was most important.

[Crunchie]

Originally Posted by padi56

It has been said that Neil Armstrong,had a problem with his watch,and did not wear one on the moons surface. I believe Aldrin's watch was lost or most probably stolen in transit somewhere after the mission.

I think I've read that it was the opposite - the on board timekeeping gear was playing up, Armstrong left his Speedmaster on board because it was working properly.

If Aldrin's Speedmaster ever turns up and can be authenticated, it must be basically priceless. Ignoring the fact that it probably remains technically US Government property, I can't see Omega backing down at any price from buying it to display.

[fivedime]

Originally Posted by Dirt

One word.
"Redundancy" my friend…

…I put it to you that it certainly would have been a consideration at the time because NASA stipulated that the movement had to have a manual winding capability.
It was indeed, fully factored in when all things are taken into consideration.

Besides.
The 321 movement was exceptionally easy on the eye just like the Corvette

Not to belabor the point, especially since you (nor any other forum member in all likelihood) know anything about me, but with at least 33 years of my so-far 38-year career involving some aspect of human spaceflight, I am well aware of the risk involved in (and redundancy designed into…) said endeavors. And the fact remains, once again, that when the first trials were undertaken, and requirements written, no commercially available auto-winding chronograph existed. So….not even a consideration. And anyway…an auto-winder would more accurately reflect the concept of “redundancy “…with the possibility that some minor failure in either winding train *may* still allow the other to function.

One other factor I don’t believe anyone has mentioned - the astronauts themselves were quite pleased when the Speedmaster was able to pass most of the qual tests - they themselves preferred it as most readable/easiest to operate of all submitted samples.

As far as the beauty of the 321 (I concur wholeheartedly)…it matters little when the watch has a solid case back…

[Deppe]

Originally Posted by johnsonsxusfrt

Fun fact, Rolex put Cosmograph on the Daytona because they were certain they would be selected.

Source in this?

This one mentions it as merely a theory: https://wristporn.com/blogs/news/wha...raph-explained

Instead they offer another explanation for the Cosmograph name:

“The term Cosmograph started to appear on Rolex watches during the 1950s. Specifically, Rolex gave the name to the Rolex Moonphase reference 6062 to describe watches with a moon phase and calendar function. This model featured both a moon phase function and stars on it, so with the above explanation of the term in mind, the name made perfect sense for the model.”

However, I don’t know enough about vintage Rolex to confirm the above.

[fivedime]

I could be mistaken, and I don’t have time to try to dig the source up right now (maybe some time over the long weekend?), but while the “common wisdom” for years was that NASA purchased the Speedies anonymously at a Houston dealer, it fairly recently came to light the actual watches tested by NASA were provided by Omega (and the other test articles’ makers). Hence, the requirements being issued in the request for articles to be considered (sent out to 14 makers?).

It is certainly true the earliest flown examples were privately purchased by their wearers, prior to NASA feeling the need to select an issued instrument. Quite possibly some, if not all, purchased at said Houston dealer.

[Eagles4133]

Rolex put NASA on a waitlist. Speedy passed all tests, Rolex, Bulova and many others failed quite a few of the rigorous tests they put the watches through.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by Tricolore66

All the watches had plastic crystals then. Rolex didn’t intrude the sapphire crystal until around 1988.

Rolex introduced sapphire crystals long before that. The first was in 1970 on its first quartz watch, and in the late '70s they started putting sapphire crystals on sports models.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by fivedime

I could be mistaken, and I don’t have time to try to dig the source up right now (maybe some time over the long weekend?), but while the “common wisdom” for years was that NASA purchased the Speedies anonymously at a Houston dealer, it fairly recently came to light the actual watches tested by NASA were provided by Omega (and the other test articles’ makers). Hence, the requirements being issued in the request for articles to be considered (sent out to 14 makers?).

It is certainly true the earliest flown examples were privately purchased by their wearers, prior to NASA feeling the need to select an issued instrument. Quite possibly some, if not all, purchased at said Houston dealer.

Correct
Myths sbound in this life and it's encumbent upon us all to push back against their proliferation

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by fivedime

Not to belabor the point, especially since you (nor any other forum member in all likelihood) know anything about me, but with at least 33 years of my so-far 38-year career involving some aspect of human spaceflight, I am well aware of the risk involved in (and redundancy designed into…) said endeavors. And the fact remains, once again, that when the first trials were undertaken, and requirements written, no commercially available auto-winding chronograph existed. So….not even a consideration. And anyway…an auto-winder would more accurately reflect the concept of “redundancy “…with the possibility that some minor failure in either winding train *may* still allow the other to function.

One other factor I don’t believe anyone has mentioned - the astronauts themselves were quite pleased when the Speedmaster was able to pass most of the qual tests - they themselves preferred it as most readable/easiest to operate of all submitted samples.

As far as the beauty of the 321 (I concur wholeheartedly)…it matters little when the watch has a solid case back…

My sincere apologies.
Some things i post are tounge in cheek stuff and it can be interspersed with facts and visa versa.
Yes they did indeed all have solid casebacks

As you note.
There was nothing commercially available at the time.
So i put it to you that it doesn't exclude an item being submitted for testing by NASA which is potentially in the development or pre-production stage.
Commercially available auto winders had been available since the early 1920's.
My personal early experience with Auto winders also includes Auto winders that can't be manually wound for love or money so that is something which is always a real possibility in the back of my own mind.
Whoever was involved with writing the acceptance criterior was a pretty savy individual/s and covered all relevant bases to render it down to the essentials.
One may even wonder if the criterior was writen to favour the Speedy for a number of reasons, but it was certainly a comprehensive validation process that can't be disputed.
After all, they did need to know conclusively, which watch was going to serve their purposes best out of what may be available to NASA and the Apollo programme

[Crunchie]

Automatic movements were certainly around before 1969, but automatic chronograph movements?

[lord91]

Originally Posted by Crunchie

Automatic movements were certainly around before 1969, but automatic chronograph movements?

No. The first automatic chronograph movement was Heuer's Calibre 11, from 1969.

[Tritto]

Originally Posted by lord91

No. The first automatic chronograph movement was Heuer's Calibre 11, from 1969.

Heuer was the first to announce their automatic chronograph, but they weren't the first to bring it to market - that was Seiko.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Deppe]

Originally Posted by Tritto

Heuer was the first to announce their automatic chronograph, but they weren't the first to bring it to market - that was Seiko.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, actually Zenith was the first to announce it, because theheard that Heuer was gonna announce theirs on Basel World.

“The brand made its announcement well ahead of the Baselworld fair so as to be able to claim its first mover status, after hearing news that the Chronomatic project would be showing their design at Basel.
According to common knowledge, the next to announce was the Chronomatic group of collaborators, on 3 March, which included Breitling, Buren, Hamilton, Heuer and Dubois-Depraz”

Source: https://revolutionwatch.com/50th-ann...ho-came-first/

“While reading his daily newspaper on the morning of Jan. 10, 1969, Jack Heuer, general director of the Heuer watch brand, suffered such a shock that he almost dropped his coffee cup. A short article announced that Heuer’s competitor Zenith had developed the world’s first automatic chronograph and was already showing functional prototypes of El Primero.”

https://www.watchtime.com/featured/c...c-chronograph/

However, as I understand it, Zenith was the last to actually bring the movement to market - around October 1969 or so, so you may very well be right in that is was Seiko that was first to bring the movement to market. That is at least also what I read from different sources.

One thing to also note is that, again from my understanding, the Zenith was an actual chronograph movement, while at least the Heuer was a chronograph module on an already existing movement.

[lord91]

Originally Posted by Deppe

Well, actually Zenith was the first to announce it, because theheard that Heuer was gonna announce theirs on Basel World.

“The brand made its announcement well ahead of the Baselworld fair so as to be able to claim its first mover status, after hearing news that the Chronomatic project would be showing their design at Basel.
According to common knowledge, the next to announce was the Chronomatic group of collaborators, on 3 March, which included Breitling, Buren, Hamilton, Heuer and Dubois-Depraz”

Source: https://revolutionwatch.com/50th-ann...ho-came-first/

“While reading his daily newspaper on the morning of Jan. 10, 1969, Jack Heuer, general director of the Heuer watch brand, suffered such a shock that he almost dropped his coffee cup. A short article announced that Heuer’s competitor Zenith had developed the world’s first automatic chronograph and was already showing functional prototypes of El Primero.”

https://www.watchtime.com/featured/c...c-chronograph/

However, as I understand it, Zenith was the last to actually bring the movement to market - around October 1969 or so, so you may very well be right in that is was Seiko that was first to bring the movement to market. That is at least also what I read from different sources.

One thing to also note is that, again from my understanding, the Zenith was an actual chronograph movement, while at least the Heuer was a chronograph module on an already existing movement.

Yes, this is the story we pretty much all know. Also, Seiko congratulated Heuer when they made the announcement at Basel World for the technological breakthrough achievement, hence why Heuer perceived it as a recognition on Seiko's behalf that Heuer beat them to it. Fun fact, the blue prints of the movement that Calibre 11 was based on are of a Seiko movement.

[Barbara_C]

Originally Posted by Kevin of Larchmont

I thought I read somewhere that the Hesalite was a benefit for Omega because it wouldn’t shatter and splinter with small pieces floating around in zero gravity. Can’t swear to that though.

I read this many many years ago.....

[Bazil]

Because it’s not safe to wear a Rolex on the moon …

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Daytona wasn't automatic till 1988. Seiko released the first auto chronograph in 1969 and that was first used in space in 1973.

I always appreciate your knowledge of the brand Adam

[Gerardus]

Originally Posted by Bazil

Because it’s not safe to wear a Rolex on the moon …

[Giovannibravo]

I believe they failed the test because they opted for a sapphire crystal.