- Posts
- 99
- Likes
- 185
Bob Neville
·It does, just as it says this:
One doesn't seem to negate the other though. It's all puff.
I guess for the majority, if it looks like a Moonwatch and ticks like a Moonwatch then it's a Moonwatch.
Can The 2021 Omega Speedmaster Moonwatch Professional Still Be Considered A Moonwatch?
- Posts
- 3,979
- Likes
- 8,986
cvalue13
·But what if those specific watches have later had their crystals, straps, and lubricants changed? Still a *true* moonwatch?
Consider a hypothetical car analogy (using hypothetical races/models):
Let’s say in 1966 Neil Bombstrong won the World Championship Production Model Race in glorious fashion, racing a “Porsche 911 Type 1” (again, made up race and model - Porsche heads don’t kill me).
Some would say that specific car in the actual race is the only valued “championship racecar” (even if it’s got new tires).
Others might say all 911 Type 1s also produced in production year 1966 are the valued “championship racecar,” because they’re production-identical to the raced version.
Still others might say the Type 1 from all production years are the “championship racecar,” despite minor cosmetic changes between production years, because they were identical in all the ways relevant to racing (car shape, engine, brakes, etc.).
Others may add that the later Type 2s are also the “championship racecar” because Porsche also fielded Type II’s in later years and won the same championship.
Still yet others will say Types 1, 2, and 3 are the “championship racecar” because even though the big race has not been run since the introduction of the Type 3, even though it’s never won the race, it’s still a 911 and it’s demonstrably true that the Type 3 is mechanically superior, faster, etc., than either a Type 1 or 2 - the Type 3 having the advantage of a modern engine, brakes, etc.
For sure Porsche would brand every 911 made thereafter, maybe even the SUVs, as the “championship racecar.”
And, most recently, Porsche “scanned” the actual 1966 Type 1 car that first won the race, and recreated it ground up (but for modern rubber compounds in the tires), groovy interior and all - and only made 20 of them?
Well, for me the analogies above help make clear what types of “moonwatch” satisfy my own historical/sentimental itch; but I can’t judge anyone for their different sentimentality thresholds.
- Posts
- 3,704
- Likes
- 8,403
blubarb
·The sentence for the quote upon which you appear to be resting your entire argument starts with “since the 21st of July, 1969”. I’m confident you’re not calling into question the street cred of the Speedmaster “Moonwatches” that rolled off the assembly line on July 22, 1969. I respect your personal opinion on whether or not the 3861 has earned “Moonwatch” - that’s entirely up to you how you feel about it, but your argument just doesn’t hold up to a consistency test.
Thank you, Bob, but what was my argument? I thought I was just highlighting the inconsistency of the manufacturer's approach to the nomenclature by not committing to the obvious, that post 321's (I believe) were not NASA qualified?
it's all one sentence with one meaning.
Edited:
- Posts
- 99
- Likes
- 185
Bob Neville
·Thank you, Bob, but what was my argument? I thought I was just highlighting the inconsistency of the manufacturer's approach to the nomenclature by not committing to the obvious, that post 321's (I believe) were not NASA qualified?
it's all one sentence with one meaning.
- Posts
- 489
- Likes
- 2,016
ckhaing
·so it has reached to the point about 3861 that -
A. some believe it is moon watch, some do not, depending on the threshold ?
B. omega wants the customers to believe that it is moon watch ?
C. both A & B ?
D. neither A or B?
A. some believe it is moon watch, some do not, depending on the threshold ?
B. omega wants the customers to believe that it is moon watch ?
C. both A & B ?
D. neither A or B?
- Posts
- 3,979
- Likes
- 8,986
cvalue13
·Contrary to some spats above, my understanding is that (A) Omega ran some sort of “flight qualification” tests on the 3861, but (B) NASA has not performed such tests nor giving the watch actual qualification. If anyone had any solid info to the contrary, that’d be cool
Regarding the NEW 321: iirc, it would be disqualified from NASA qualification due to the ceramic bezel and sapphire crystal? Something about shards being a no no in zero g/craft
Regarding the NEW 321: iirc, it would be disqualified from NASA qualification due to the ceramic bezel and sapphire crystal? Something about shards being a no no in zero g/craft
- Posts
- 886
- Likes
- 468
Duckie
·Contrary to some spats above, my understanding is that (A) Omega ran some sort of “flight qualification” tests on the 3861, but (B) NASA has not performed such tests nor giving the watch actual qualification. If anyone had any solid info to the contrary, that’d be cool
Regarding the NEW 321: iirc, it would be disqualified from NASA qualification due to the ceramic bezel and sapphire crystal? Something about shards being a no no in zero g/craft
Well put👍
Firstly there needs to be some firm ground rules around the criteria and possible future discussion.
I suggest there are three key aspects of a "Moonwatch" that need to be adhered to.
One is that it should have a Hesalite crystal. Another is that it has no complication other than a Chronograph function.
The other is that it's a manual wind movement.
These aspects are probably at odds with the Omega marketing department's definition👎
Since the original series of tests and subsequent approval by NASA, any and all other testing to date has been outsourced to the manufacturer.
I personally regard the original series of tests as a type approval, with all other tests since then being a re-validation of the original tests.
On that basis the current watch probably stands on it's own in the lineage unless there is any evidence it's less than those watches that went before it.
Besides, if the 3861 is still good enough for NASA to consider using it for EVAs(which seems to be the case), then who are we to second guess it's credentials?👎
Edited:
- Posts
- 489
- Likes
- 2,016
ckhaing
·.... sapphire crystal? Something about shards being a no no in zero g/craft
not all 3861 are created equal
hesalite crystal
310.30.42.50.01.001
310.32.42.50.01.001
sapphire crystal
310.30.42.50.01.002
310.32.42.50.01.002
310.60.42.50.01.001
310.63.42.50.01.001
310.60.42.50.02.001
310.63.42.50.02.001
- Posts
- 3,704
- Likes
- 8,403
blubarb
·"And since the 21st of July 1969, when it was first worn on the lunar surface, it has been popularly known as the Moonwatch." I agree with you that "it's all one sentence with one meaning", so my read is that according to Omega, every Omega Speedmaster Professional ever manufactured per specs that were in-place on 7/21/1969 and all design iterations thereafter, have all "been popularly known as the Moonwatch." And that includes the 2021 model with the 3861 movement. I'm unclear on your personal position on the 3861 movement's entitlement to the honor of being called a "Moonwatch", it sounded to me as though you're in the "it's not a Moonwatch camp", but whatever it is you're certainly entitled to it. The debate was about Omega's position on the matter, which I think is clear from the sentence.
- Posts
- 3,979
- Likes
- 8,986
- Posts
- 1,398
- Likes
- 2,680
DoctorEvil
·Well put👍
Firstly there needs to be some firm ground rules around the criteria and possible future discussion.
I suggest there are three key aspects of a "Moonwatch" that need to be adhered to.
One is that it should have a Hesalite crystal. Another is that it has no complication other than a Chronograph function.
The other is that it's a manual wind movement.
These aspects are probably at odds with the Omega marketing department's definition👎
Since the original series of tests and subsequent approval by NASA, any and all other testing to date has been outsourced to the manufacturer.
I personally regard the original series of tests as a type approval, with all other tests since then being a re-validation of the original tests.
On that basis the current watch probably stands on it's own in the lineage unless there is any evidence it's less than those watches that went before it.
Besides, if the 3861 is still good enough for NASA to consider using it for EVAs(which seems to be the case), then who are we to second guess it's credentials?👎
- Posts
- 489
- Likes
- 2,016
ckhaing
·Duckie said: The other is that it's a manual wind movement.[/QUOTE said:Why?
i guess because rotor in the automatic movement needs gravity to work
Edited:
- Posts
- 4,609
- Likes
- 17,501
Omegafanman
·not all 3861 are created equal
hesalite crystal
310.30.42.50.01.001
310.32.42.50.01.001
sapphire crystal
310.30.42.50.01.002
310.32.42.50.01.002
310.60.42.50.01.001
310.63.42.50.01.001
310.60.42.50.02.001
310.63.42.50.02.001
We have been down that rabbit hole before - Plenty of bigger non structural glass screens on Apollo (which did break and in part explains why they invented a battery vacuum to clean them up). Hesalite failure mode was not a selection consideration based on the evidence and modern (strong) Sapphire on watches is fine to fly.
Shattering the Speedy Hesalite Apollo / NASA selection myth (maybe) | Omega Forums
- Posts
- 27,252
- Likes
- 69,493
- Posts
- 8,934
- Likes
- 45,798
gbesq
·Alternate reality reason that NASA selected Omega: Rolex required NASA to buy several other models that NASA didn't want before Rolex would sell something that could be flight qualified. Then Rolex put NASA on a five year waiting list for a model that could be flight qualified. The Space Program just couldn't wait. The Russians were already ahead of us. 😀
- Posts
- 3,979
- Likes
- 8,986
- Posts
- 99
- Likes
- 185
Bob Neville
·A rotor spins, powered by the arm it’s strapped to.
Plenty of autos have been watch if choice for astronauts.
- Posts
- 489
- Likes
- 2,016
- Posts
- 99
- Likes
- 185
Bob Neville
·A rotor spins, powered by the arm it’s strapped to.
Plenty of autos have been watch if choice for astronauts.
- Posts
- 3,979
- Likes
- 8,986
cvalue13
·But undoubtedly the rotor will be more effective and efficient with the benefit of a constant mass x 9.8 m/s^2
…an argument could possibly be made that an automatic movement is more efficient in zero gravity.
Looks like we have a nerdy watch disagreement on deck - which I hope is what we all are here for.
@Archer any view from the “inside”?
Hmmm, maybe that’s why they selected manual wind - they didn’t know what would happen if the rotor started spinning at very high speed and didn’t stop?
Well, they didn’t “select” manual initially - no auto chrono existed for Omega until ~1972
In my view, Omega’s cal.1040/1041 auto-chrono watches would have been a far better choice for astronauts: not the least of reasons being the inclusion of a 24hr indicator, which is significant for reading time accurately in space where within any 24hr period an astronaut experiences dozens and dozens of sunsets/sunrises. The 24hr indicator is also helpful because NASA/HOUSTON operates on a 24hr clock, not a double-twelve time.
So for example, were an astronaut knocked unconscious, and came to with only a NASA-approved speedmaster on her wrist to discern the time: she would have no precise way of knowing whether it was AM/PM or how long she may have been unconscious.
Indeed, the earliest watches used by US astronaughts in training were specially made 24hr watches for just these reasons, thereafter many US astronauts in space have brought their own 24hr/GMT watches along, and many non-US astronauts were issued or preferred watches with 24hr/GMT functionality.
To say nothing of an auto reducing the chances of a failure to wind/lose time…
Similar threads
- Posts
- 2
- Views
- 2K
- Posts
- 33
- Views
- 8K
- Posts
- 56
- Views
- 7K
- Posts
- 9
- Views
- 3K
- Posts
- 0
- Views
- 2K
