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

[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.

[Krash]

I thought I read somewhere that Omega had better results but Rolex also passed the tests.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[amphr1]

Because Rolex watch failed the NASA test. I can't recall exactly what failed tho.

Sent from my SM-S918U1 using Tapatalk

[Calatrava r]

https://www.gearpatrol.com/watches/a...s-speedmaster/

[Calatrava r]

Originally Posted by Calatrava r

https://www.gearpatrol.com/watches/a...s-speedmaster/

Finally, on March 1, 1965, the results were in. The Rolex model stopped running on two occasions during the relative humidity test and failed one of the temperature tests. The Longines-Wittnauer also failed one of the temperature tests as well as the decompression test. Then, there was the Omega Speedmaster: It gained 21 minutes during the decompression test and lost 15 minutes during the acceleration tests. The luminous material on the dial was destroyed, but all in all, the Omega chronograph performed satisfactorily. It was unanimous — the Speedy won by a landslide. However, NASA suggested a few improvements and modifications: the addition of a 24-hour rotating bezel and luminous markings to the elapsed time dials.

[testrak]

Rolex – It stopped running on two occasions during the Relative Humidity Test and subsequently failed during High Temperature Test No. 1 when the sweep second hand warped and was binding against the other hands on the dial. No further tests were run with the Rolex chronographs

[gamingdoctor]

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.

Hand winding had nothing to do with it, that's a common misconception. Automatic watches work just fine in space.

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by gamingdoctor

Hand winding had nothing to do with it, that's a common misconception. Automatic watches work just fine in space.

Yes, and be that as it may.

NASA had stipulated as part of their key requirements/preconditions for contenders of the series of tests, that the watches simply had to have the capability of being manually wound.
That is an inescapable fact and one would imagine it was for a very important reason when one stops to think about it.

[fivedime]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Yes, and be that as it may.

NASA had stipulated as part of their key requirements/preconditions for contenders of the series of tests, that the watches simply had to have the capability of being manually wound.
That is an inescapable fact and one would imagine it was for a very important reason when one stops to think about it.

Auto-winding chronograph movements were in their infancy in the mid-60’s when the first selections took place (and in fact not commercially available until 1969). If there was indeed any concrete reason for specifying manual winding, that was likely it. More likely it was simply governmentese overstatement of the obvious. It has often been said that “nobody was sure if auto-winders would wind in microgravity,” but I tend to disbelieve that. It’s not like NASA didn’t have plenty of folks working for them with deep backgrounds in Physics who understood momentum was the underlying driver with the winding rotor, not gravity. Regardless, it wasn’t even a point of consideration at the time…

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by fivedime

Auto-winding chronograph movements were in their infancy in the mid-60’s when the first selections took place (and in fact not commercially available until 1969). If there was indeed any concrete reason for specifying manual winding, that was likely it. More likely it was simply governmentese overstatement of the obvious. It has often been said that “nobody was sure if auto-winders would wind in microgravity,” but I tend to disbelieve that. It’s not like NASA didn’t have plenty of folks working for them with deep backgrounds in Physics who understood momentum was the underlying driver with the winding rotor, not gravity. Regardless, it wasn’t even a point of consideration at the time…

One word.
"Redundancy" my friend.

It was and remains a risky endeavour and having manual winders is the epidimy of having back up if one is sporting an Automatic.
Especially when the chips are down.

Keep in mind we currently live in a horoligical world that's awash with the ubiquitous bi-directional Auto winders.
It wasn't always the case and as you note. Autos weren't common.
But certainly not excluded from the selection process.
Also there was a requirement driven by the Astronauts, to formalise a standard for the timpieces to be used because a number of different (personal) watches were being worn.
Astronauts were already using Speedies, and as a result they were familiar with them as a useful tool and they were a bit of a favourite as far as i know.

The fact remains everything was done for good reason to maximise the possibilty of launching into space, sending a man to the moon, landing and walking on the moon and returning them safely to Earth.
The Speedy was the front runner and winner for all the right reasons.
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

[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…

[Ten Ten & 32]

Originally Posted by Dirt

Yes, and be that as it may.

NASA had stipulated as part of their key requirements/preconditions for contenders of the series of tests, that the watches simply had to have the capability of being manually wound.
That is an inescapable fact and one would imagine it was for a very important reason when one stops to think about it.

Automatic movements can be manually wound


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tools]

Originally Posted by Ten Ten & 32

Automatic movements can be manually wound

True.

At the time Rolex did not have an automatic chronograph, only the manually wound Valjoux equipped Daytona/Cosmograph.

It's ancient history though. They only tested one Daytona from a store shelf, and a hand warped binding it up. Another Daytona may not have had the same experience, and history could have been different.

[brandrea]

The Speedmaster caliber 321 passed all the tests.

A great read from Fratello.

https://www.fratellowatches.com/the-...-watches/#gref

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by Calatrava r

It was unanimous — the Speedy won by a landslide.

A legend was born (and a milk cow for Omega :chuckle )

Originally Posted by brandrea

The Speedmaster caliber 321 passed all the tests.

A great read from Fratello.

https://www.fratellowatches.com/the-...-watches/#gref

Thanks for sharing Brian !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by fskywalker

A legend was born (and a milk cow for Omega :chuckle )





Thanks for sharing Brian !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I also have the complete write up on this within the 321 box set.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fskywalker]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I also have the complete write up on this within the 321 box set.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This thread needs pictures! Where’s that magnificent 321 Brian??

In the meantime here is my humble 3861





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by fskywalker

This thread needs pictures! Where’s that magnificent 321 Brian??

In the meantime here is my humble 3861





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

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

I submit the 321





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I also have the complete write up on this within the 321 box set.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You flexing on the Rolex forum again Brian?


When everybody knows that the real reason why NASA chose the Omega offering was simply because the 321 was the prettiest movement out of the whole bunch

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Dirt

You flexing on the Rolex forum again Brian?


When everybody knows that the real reason why NASA chose the Omega offering was simply because the 321 was the prettiest movement out of the whole bunch

I apologize.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[996marty]

Some interesting information

[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.

[Tricolore66]

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

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.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

Originally Posted by Tricolore66

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

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by Tricolore66

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

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

[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]

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

[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 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.

That's quite true.
There was one instance where a glass instrument cover broke and the crew spent hours going around vaccuming up every square inch of the interior of the craft to try to mitigate the risk of floating glass fragments ruining the party.
They apparently did take it most seriously when all things are taken into consideration.

[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.....