Can The 2021 Omega Speedmaster Moonwatch Professional Still Be Considered A Moonwatch?

MTROIS

Ok, after listening to Eric Wind’s @georgetownhoya Significant Watches podcast episode #6, and more specifically his comments on the missing Speedies that were tested by NASA (the segment on this story starts at around 17’35”) at the 19’23” mark, I now need to revive this thread!

Specifically, Eric is stating that the soft iron cover present in the Ed White watches tested by NASA, did play a role in the final result as he states (not sure if proven) that that soft iron cover would have helped distribute shockwaves around/away from the movement (and I am NOT talking about the magnetic waves in this particular case) during impact testing.
Even more specifically, he was referring to that little dimple in the center of the soft iron cover that would be pressed again the case back.

What is your take on this one guys?

Asking, because that would mean that the new 3861 would have strayed to far away from the initial design, despite the fact that the 3861 cal. is resistant to magnetic fields.

Thoughts!?

Omegafanman

While Hesalite may have some beneficial failure mode characteristics, it was a lucky coincidence and not part of the selection or test criteria for the Speedmaster.

https://omegaforums.net/threads/sha...nasa-selection-myth-maybe.91611/#post-1187635

S SlCKB0Y

Sapphire would present less of a problem for EVA if smashed and more of a problem inside the vehicle in microgravity. Outside it would just float off, inside some tiny shards might float around just waiting to be inhaled by someone.

D Duckie

I disagree.
When the requirements are taken into full consideration, it would seem that anything other than a plastic Crystal would be precluded.
I think there was one Apollo mission where the glass cover over the dial of an instrument which broke and they spent an outrageous amount of time trying to vacuum up all the bits to a satisfactory standard.
In that case plastic would be superior anytime👎

Omegafanman

Exactly- so they would have used a different cover for the large instrument panels / not glass if it was a strong requirement from the get go. The evidence does not point to a specification request for plexiglass etc on the watches. if you read the whole linked thread there is no written evidence to show it was a specified need or indeed part of the selection process.

Omegafanman

The evidence does not point to a specification request for plexiglass etc on the watches. if you read the whole linked thread there is no written evidence to show it was a specified need or indeed part of the selection process.

orlis

Was the sapphire glass even an option in 60ties??

Omegafanman

I would like to see an original copy of the statement of specification - does anyone have that?
Typically the tests are developed to assess conformance to the specifications - and there was no impact or shatter test.
Is that because all watches were considered identical in that regard (an unusual level of assumption for engineers) or is it more likely that was not a strong need due to the small size of the instrument?
It might be we can never know the answer - but I think we can say nothing has precluded Sapphire crystal watches from flight.
Glass was also clearly being used for instruments etc in Apollo and the shuttle.
Sapphire glass was available in the sixties but I do not know how many chronograph watches in the price range would have been around with anything other than plastic crystals when they made the equipment selection. As sapphire glass has become the de facto high end watch crystal there has been nothing to preclude or prevent there use in space (the X33 being the obvious example). Many personal preference watches have also flown with Sapphire crystals (I don’t know the spec of the Panerai which was recently used on a space walk?)
Of course the shape and design of crystal will make some less prone to breakage, but I have not seen or heard of any qualification tests to check those for flight approval. COTS parts are being used more and more in space flight to reduce unnecessary costs. The Speedmaster was unmodified and commercial off the shelf. I still do not think on all known data the crystal material was or is part of the selection criteria and it is not reviewed to to same standards as the structural design.

D Duckie

Setting the Omega propaganda aside and keeping the original specifications in front of mind.
Given the question posed as the thread heading, I put it to you that only a Hesalite version can be considered a true Moonwatch.

Then again, if Omega wants to call something a Moonwatch just because they can then so be it as it appears they were the ones that started to label the only variant of the Speedy which was available at the time and happens to have a Hesalite crystal "The Moonwatch" then so be it i suppose👎
Just providing some context👍

Omegafanman

I would like to see an original copy of the statement of specification - does anyone have that?

Omegafanman

On that basis it is subjective and each individual will draw their own line. It also makes sense for Omega to push a reasonable amount of branding extension to accommodate modern design enhancements which for reasons stated above should not preclude its use in Space. Would a purist accept a Speedmaster 2021 3861 with hesalite as a Moonwatch and does fitting a Sapphire crystal make much difference considering the other changes and movement enhancements. For an extreme example is this MG still an MG? it has the form and DNA but of course is now electric to match modern technology and environmental concerns. I bet it has faster acceleration as well :0)
.

cvalue13

added to your other thread, and for completeness will post here as well - the rest of the memorandum with suggested manufacturers, the tests to be conducted, etc., can be found with some diligent searching. (Posting also the Omega responsive invoice just because it’s fun.)

I believe you yourself have previously posted the testing to be conducted which also comes from this same memorandum, so I’m unsure of the source of your seeming skepticism

cvalue13

added to your other thread, and for completeness will post here as well - the rest of the memorandum with suggested manufacturers, the tests to be conducted, etc., can be found with some diligent searching. (Posting also the Omega responsive invoice just because it’s fun.)

I believe you yourself have previously posted the testing to be conducted which also comes from this same memorandum, so I’m unsure of the source of your seeming skepticism

Omegafanman

Thanks for the info - I think we have covered this on the other thread.

Archer

Well, if they stay in place is really not a function of the material, but the design of the case and to a larger extent, the type and severity of the impact. But they do shatter into many small pieces...

You wouldn't want to inhale or get in your eyes any of the small razor-sharp shards that are formed when a sapphire is broken...