Community Stories

Astronauts wore Rolex GMT's and not just Speedmasters. Say it isn't so...

thegreentreefrog
Posts
55
Likes
74
Yes, Many carried their own personal watches, a Bolivia was worn on Apollo 15, But as far as i can tell only the Omega Speedmaster was flight certified by NASA!
 
Foo2rama
Posts
17,685
Likes
26,777
thegreentreefrog thegreentreefrog
Yes, Many carried their own personal watches, a Bolivia was worn on Apollo 15, But as far as i can tell only the Omega Speedmaster was flight certified by NASA!
At the time...

Now some Casio, Seiko, another Omega and a few others.
 
Professor
Posts
2,327
Likes
2,539
Only space related collector grade book I own is a near mint first simultaneous edition of "Forbidden Planet". Its a hard back with near perfect dust cover which is very uncommon. I picked it up for the grand sum of 25 cents US.
Its in such great shape because the salvage store where I found it had a pay masters vault room that had been closed and locked since the company that first occupied the building went under in the 60's. Someone had stored a lot of old books and records there. When the salvage store got the vault un-locked they sold off everything inside dirt cheap.

I've found first editions like mine, but in much less nice condition and with damaged or missing dust covers, priced at over two grand.

I do still have several Life Magazines from the early space age era. Some great artwork as well as photos.
 
SpeedyPhill
Posts
6,288
Likes
11,620
@thegreentreefrog
About Apollo 15 You probably meant to say " Bulova " chronograph 😉
Scott's privately owned Bulova chronograph was sold at auction in 2015...
I have been collecting cosmonaut & astronaut autographs for 45 years now and written several articles on space watches since 1999...
In the 1970s through 1994 everybody was able to get these autographs for free, writing to StarCity in Moscow or NASA centers in the USA
I gave astronomy (Time-ball, observatories,...) and spaceflight related lectures in 33 countries... all on a 100% voluntary unpaid basis, so I'm 100% brand independent and I'm still amazed when posting time-period US & Russian photographs from my private collection that sometimes it's deemed an important discovery and sometimes it's deemed just a photo proving nothing !
 
SpeedyPhill
Posts
6,288
Likes
11,620
Although we're in the midst of a worldwide Artificial Intelligence (AI) driven data gathering boom, finding new facts will still depend on aficionados & collectors manually going through hundreds of time-period photos to locate & acknowledge certain (new) facts...
The upcoming 50th anniversaries of the Apollo missions are going to reveal nice things.... 😗
 
vintagestuff
Posts
141
Likes
680
Foo2rama Foo2rama
At the time...

Now some Casio, Seiko, another Omega and a few others.

Again, a Mickey Mouse Timex could likely have survived inside the capsule, LEM, etc. (Although, given how badly the Rolex Daytona failed during testing, Mickey might have outlasted that one. The Daytona didn't really take a licking before it stopped ticking, and, yes, I own one and have had a few) So NASA has certified some modern watches for flight besides the Speedmaster. I'm pretty sure the Speedmaster is still the only watch certified to step OUTSIDE of the artificial atmosphere in space. Is that so? I remember reading that not long ago. I am looking for the article I used to have that detailed Bulova's desperate (and somewhat dishonest and pathetic) attempts to belly up to the space money trough. If anyone has it, please share. I added a quick note below re the first testing outcomes. Hamilton had submitted a pocket watch which was tossed out right away, sadly.

*I don't hate Rolex. I wear a Sub often and used to love my Daytonas, but after age 40, the Daytona was too shiny for me, and two of mine loved attention so much that they demanded new mainsprings after 4 years. TWICE. I have yet to have a Speedmaster mainspring fail while in my possession, though I did buy one with a broken MS. Even that one would wind and run for a day while broken. The Daytonas were finished until their spa treatment after the MS gave out.

In a NASA memorandum dated March 1, 1965 the results of its extensive testing was concluded with the following major discrepancies found:

  1. 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
  2. Longines Wittnauer – The crystal warped and disengaged during the High Temperature Test. The same discrepancy occurred on a second Longines Wittnauer during Decompression Test No. 8. No further tests were run with Longines Wittnauer chronographs.
  3. Omega – It gained 21 minutes during the Decompression Test and lost 15 minutes during the Acceleration Test. The luminescence on the dial was destroyed during testing. At the conclusion of all testing the Omega chronograph operated satisfactorily.
On June 1st, 1965 the Omega Speedmaster Professional (Ref. 105.003) received the official NASA certification for use during manned space flight.

It's also worth noting that the Mercury astronauts also selected the Speedmaster, aside from the testing, due to whichever factors they found most important.
Edited:
 
Foo2rama
Posts
17,685
Likes
26,777
vintagestuff vintagestuff
Again, a Mickey Mouse Timex could likely have survived inside the capsule, LEM, etc. (Although, given how badly the Rolex Daytona failed during testing, Mickey might have outlasted that one. The Daytona didn't really take a licking before it stopped ticking, and, yes, I own one and have had a few) So NASA has certified some modern watches for flight besides the Speedmaster. I'm pretty sure the Speedmaster is still the only watch certified to step OUTSIDE of the artificial atmosphere in space. Is that so? I remember reading that not long ago.

I believe so for NASA not sure about ESA.

The X-33 from Omega might be Eva qualified, but apparently NASA stopped using watches on EVA before it was released I think.

Russia EVA qualified the Fortis but uses Speedmasters.
 
Archer
Posts
27,745
Likes
70,495
vintagestuff vintagestuff
the Daytona was too shiny for me, and two of mine loved attention so much that they demanded new mainsprings after 4 years. TWICE. I have yet to have a Speedmaster mainspring fail while in my possession, though I did buy one with a broken MS. Even that one would wind and run for a day while broken. The Daytonas were finished until their spa treatment after the MS gave out.

With regards to the quality/durability of the watch, this scenario is not particularly telling from a technical point of view.

Mainsprings break - fact of life and I get in many watches with broken springs, including many Speedmasters. The fact that yours ran with a broken spring is simply because of where it broke and not any indication of anything superior to the Rolex. If the Rolex had broken at the outer coil, it would have run just the same as the Speedmaster did.

Cheers, Al
 
vintagestuff
Posts
141
Likes
680
Of course it ran due to the the location of the break, but my point was more about two Daytonas that each broke mainsprings twice (both El Primeros) and each lasted about four years, or maybe five. And my main point with re to Speedmasters was that given a few dozen samples, none have broken, except the one I purchased as already damaged. This is just my personal experience, (your mileage may differ) but it was four springs in less than ten years, and my experience with Speedmasters has been very, very different. In my opinion, it was telling at least with regard to the mainsprings used. Either way, the Daytona sits while I wear the Speedmasters.
 
Archer
Posts
27,745
Likes
70,495
vintagestuff vintagestuff
Of course it ran due to the the location of the break, but my point was more about two Daytonas that each broke mainsprings twice (both El Primeros) and each lasted about four years, or maybe five. And my main point with re to Speedmasters was that given a few dozen samples, none have broken, except the one I purchased as already damaged. This is just my personal experience, (your mileage may differ) but it was four springs in less than ten years, and my experience with Speedmasters has been very, very different. In my opinion, it was telling at least with regard to the mainsprings used. Either way, the Daytona sits while I wear the Speedmasters.

There is of course a strong desire to correlate such experiences and think they reflective of some larger pattern, but the sample size is far too small to draw any sort of conclusion. In particular with the lack of details - for example did you get the mainsprings that initially broke replaced by Rolex? If not, then it's possible they were not genuine mainsprings, but aftermarket, or the wrong dimensions, etc..

These are certainly your personal experiences, and if you want to believe there is more to it than just a bit of bad luck that is certainly your prerogative. However from my standpoint as someone who services/repairs watches all day long to earn a living, there is no evidence to suggest that the quality of Rolex mainsprings in the Daytona are better or worse than any other watches out there of the same mid-tier level, including the various kinds of Speedmasters. If Daytona mainsprings were breaking left and right it would be all over the watchmaking community, as problems like this tend to get shared very quickly. I can tell you there is no such chatter now or in the past with regards to these watches.

Cheers, Al
 
vintagestuff
Posts
141
Likes
680
I was clear that this was my own personal experience, and yes, the watches were serviced by Rolex (to the tune of 700 or 800 each time. (in the 90s) Would you prefer that I somehow take back what I wrote or tell you that it didn't happen? I stand to gain nothing by slandering Rolex mainsprings. I simply shared my disappointment in my experience with mainsprings in two of four Daytonas I have owned and used. Any reader here can take from that what he will. As a watchmaker who services chronographs on a regular basis, your experiences are clearly more valuable to someone conducting an empirical study. I am not disputing what you have observed in these "mid tier" level watches. I get it that around here you are one of the very few who can repair a complication, and I've heard good things about your work, but expressing to me that "if you want to believe there is more to it than just a bit of bad luck" is a tad condescending. I'm a grown man, public servant, military veteran, with a JD and a good bit of experience in all sorts of things. I've been handling "mid tier" watches for about 25 years now and repairing movements that aren't complicated for maybe 15. I'm allowed to state that I had watches that seemed too prone to breaking mainsprings. Can we leave it at that? If not, I'm afraid you'll have to continue without me.
 
ScubaPro
Posts
212
Likes
204
scv55 scv55
I'm not the kind of guy who only recognizes the Speedy Pro as the "one and only space/moon watch," however it does surprise me that given NASAs specific requirement for hesalite crystal to remain on the Speedmaster because of the potential for sapphire to shatter and send shards of glass everywhere in zero G, that they would allow guys to bring other watches. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the Rolex GMT and I want one very much. Just surprised this wasn't prevented.

At least two of these marvelous hesalite crystals popped off and caused the watches to fail on lunar missions. NASA never took the watch choice too seriously as they picked a junior engineer (who knew nothing about watches) to test a whopping four candidates. When the Speedmasters failed on moon missions, they didn't even recommend any action being taken. Would a sapphire crystal have stayed in place during temperature cycles, and therefore have been better choice? No idea. It looks like they really didn't care. I think (although I'm not sure) plenty of watches have been worn in zero G since with sapphire crystals as I don't think their too worried about the shattering issue, although I think it's a reasonable concern. I believe the GMT Masters worn in space (and there were a few as it was a favorite of test pilots) had acrylic crystals anyway.
Archer Archer
There is of course a strong desire to correlate such experiences and think they reflective of some larger pattern, but the sample size is far too small to draw any sort of conclusion. In particular with the lack of details - for example did you get the mainsprings that initially broke replaced by Rolex? If not, then it's possible they were not genuine mainsprings, but aftermarket, or the wrong dimensions, etc..

These are certainly your personal experiences, and if you want to believe there is more to it than just a bit of bad luck that is certainly your prerogative. However from my standpoint as someone who services/repairs watches all day long to earn a living, there is no evidence to suggest that the quality of Rolex mainsprings in the Daytona are better or worse than any other watches out there of the same mid-tier level, including the various kinds of Speedmasters. If Daytona mainsprings were breaking left and right it would be all over the watchmaking community, as problems like this tend to get shared very quickly. I can tell you there is no such chatter now or in the past with regards to these watches.

Cheers, Al
 
ScubaPro
Posts
212
Likes
204
Archer Archer
There is of course a strong desire to correlate such experiences and think they reflective of some larger pattern, but the sample size is far too small to draw any sort of conclusion. In particular with the lack of details - for example did you get the mainsprings that initially broke replaced by Rolex? If not, then it's possible they were not genuine mainsprings, but aftermarket, or the wrong dimensions, etc..

These are certainly your personal experiences, and if you want to believe there is more to it than just a bit of bad luck that is certainly your prerogative. However from my standpoint as someone who services/repairs watches all day long to earn a living, there is no evidence to suggest that the quality of Rolex mainsprings in the Daytona are better or worse than any other watches out there of the same mid-tier level, including the various kinds of Speedmasters. If Daytona mainsprings were breaking left and right it would be all over the watchmaking community, as problems like this tend to get shared very quickly. I can tell you there is no such chatter now or in the past with regards to these watches.

Cheers, Al
Al,
One thing I've always wanted to know (and apologies if you've covered this), is do OEMs tend to make their own mainsprings? Unlike balance springs which are so much more complex in their delicate (but necessarily durable) construction it seems main springs are like truck diesel engines in that they just deliver power and must sustain millions of winding cycles, so their are tough, simple creatures. I've always though this is a part that manufacturers would feel find outsourcing to a reliable vendor. What's the reality?
 
GordonL
Posts
430
Likes
630
I think you're being unfair on the "junior engineer" who carried out the tests ( can't remember his name at the moment). When you're carrying out qualification tests on a piece of equipment, you need to know how to carry out the tests and what the pass/fail criteria are. You don't need to have any in-depth knowledge about the items you're testing. Of course it can help, but I don't think you can conclude that NASA didn't care.
 
vintagestuff
Posts
141
Likes
680
ScubaPro ScubaPro
At least two of these marvelous hesalite crystals popped off and caused the watches to fail on lunar missions. NASA never took the watch choice too seriously as they picked a junior engineer (who knew nothing about watches) to test a whopping four candidates. When the Speedmasters failed on moon missions, they didn't even recommend any action being taken. Would a sapphire crystal have stayed in place during temperature cycles, and therefore have been better choice? No idea. It looks like they really didn't care. I think (although I'm not sure) plenty of watches have been worn in zero G since with sapphire crystals as I don't think their too worried about the shattering issue, although I think it's a reasonable concern. I believe the GMT Masters worn in space (and there were a few as it was a favorite of test pilots) had acrylic crystals anyway.

The crystals also had to be shatterproof to qualify to be tested, if memory serves. That may explain why glass was out. The crystals that came out in actual use isn't so bad given the number of hours and watches used during those many missions. The fact remains, the other candidates failed BEFORE making it to space. The Rolex had multiple failures and didn't finish testing. The Longines, I believe, was also removed early in the process due to failures. I'd have to re read. The above is based on my personal memory reading in the past.
 
269 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...