Community Stories

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

pdxleaf
Posts
4,931
Likes
17,208
A little late to the party.

Regarding the automatic being able to be manually wound criteria, the seiko 6139 that came out in 1969 was an auto chrono that couldn't be self wound. Of course it didn't have all the required sub registers but perhaps Nasa was being proactive in requiring the manual wind feature.

Edit, practically speaking, an automatic chronograph with a power reserve indicator that can be manually would be more useful in a long term working environment like the trip to the moon. It simply wasn't available.

Omega thought the mark ii would be a better moon watch. So right away the watch was just a tool that was being upgraded. Omega wanted the alaska project and x-33 to replace the traditional moonwatch. So it seems to me that Omega places a lot of emphasis on "the first watch worn on the moon" more than "flight qualified" when calling something a moonwatch. I guess any Omega that is a homage to the original could be considered a moonwatch using Omega's standards.
Edited:
 
Archer
Posts
27,341
Likes
69,721
Nobel Prize Nobel Prize
Exactly. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight sort of thing.

Yep - while putting a Panerai movement together since my last post I thought of some marketing Omega may use. They buy up a Rolex chronograph of the same type that failed, bend up the hands, and post a picture of it stopped, with the tag line:

"If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

Beside a Speedmaster ticking away...

Done.
 
gbesq
Posts
8,999
Likes
46,213
Archer Archer
Yep - while putting a Panerai movement together since my last post I thought of some marketing Omega may use. They buy up a Rolex chronograph of the same type that failed, bend up the hands, and post a picture of it stopped, with the tag line:

"If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

Beside a Speedmaster ticking away...

Done.
And you would be entitled to an enormous royalty for that marketing campaign. 😀
 
PandaSPUR
Posts
681
Likes
652
Dan S Dan S
You are confounding absolute and gage pressure. The absolute pressure in space is practically zero, correct. Absolute pressure cannot be negative, so the specification clearly doesn't suggest that the watch should be exposed to an absolute pressure of negative 10mmHg. The negative pressure specification refers to "gage pressure" or a pressure difference compared to ambient (e.g. atmospheric) pressure, suggesting that the watch would be exposed to a pressure that is only 10 mmHg less than atmospheric pressure. We can speculate on the reasons for this, but obviously we don't know why the specs were written this way. It's a very modest requirement in the context of exposure to vacuum. To put it into context, atmospheric pressure is approximately 760 mmHg.

Since I'm an Engineering professor (and occasionally teach Fluid Mechanics), I didn't need to google this. 😉

Good info, thanks!

I was trying to think along those lines in the latter half of my post, basically how much "atmosphere" would a speedy retain inside the case, and would that be enough to be 10mmHg on the inside, pushing the crystal out. Not an engineer or physicist so i dont know the terms XD

Fun to think about though.
 
D
Posts
886
Likes
468
Nobel Prize Nobel Prize
And a great source here that may be a little depressing to true moon watch fan boys https://www.swisswatchexpo.com/TheWatchClub/2020/07/06/nasa-astronauts-and-their-rolex-watches/

Seems like even James Lovell favored a Rolex. Uh Oh...Houston we do have a problem!!

Now you've done it.
And things were just trundling along nicely.

Anyway, Rolex obviously hasn't seen any value in pursuing the whole Moonwatch thing.
They probably don't want to bring to light the fact that their only offering was a failure when tested.
 
cvalue13
Posts
3,979
Likes
8,987
Archer Archer
Thanks - confirms no photo of a Rolex being worn on the moon. For a minute I thought Rolex's marketing machine had really effed up!!

Though I believe worn inside the suit
 
Archer
Posts
27,341
Likes
69,721
cvalue13 cvalue13
Though I believe worn inside the suit

"Rolex watches were worn on the moon. Photos? No sorry, don't have any, but they were for sure. No really...trust us!"

😉
 
cvalue13
Posts
3,979
Likes
8,987
Archer Archer
"Rolex watches were worn on the moon. Photos? No sorry, don't have any, but they were for sure. No really...trust us!"

😉

I know a certain member here whom is probably the world’s expert in exactly which watches were fit under the gloves of EVA suits 😗😗
 
gbesq
Posts
8,999
Likes
46,213
cvalue13 cvalue13
I know a certain member here whom is probably the world’s expert in exactly which watches were fit under the gloves of EVA suits 😗😗
Show us some real evidence that Rolex watches were worn by NASA astronauts under their space suits for EVA. Personally, I have my doubts. It's hard enough to find Rolex watches in Rolex boutiques.
 
Mouse_at_Large
Posts
2,026
Likes
5,398
Only a teeny, tiny percentage of Speedmasters have actually been to the moon. Everything else is a replica/homage/successor (depending on how far it's strayed from the original spec).

Just like most Rolex Deep Sea Sea-Dwellers don't see anything more deep than a swimming pool and my Glycine Airman was never used by a Vietnam War helicopter pilot.

It's just a name.
 
gbesq
Posts
8,999
Likes
46,213
Mouse_at_Large Mouse_at_Large
Only a teeny, tiny percentage of Speedmasters have actually been to the moon. Everything else is a replica/homage/successor (depending on how far it's strayed from the original spec).

Just like most Rolex Deep Sea Sea-Dwellers don't see anything more deep than a swimming pool and my Glycine Airman was never used by a Vietnam War helicopter pilot.

It's just a name.
Not really. The Speedmaster Professional models using calibers 321, 861 and 1861 were qualified by NASA for manned space flight and EVA. The fact that only a tiny fraction of these watches made it into space does not mean that the remainder were not qualified to do so. They are not replicas.
 
Mouse_at_Large
Posts
2,026
Likes
5,398
gbesq gbesq
Not really. The Speedmaster Professional models using calibers 321, 861 and 1861 were qualified by NASA for manned space flight and EVA. The fact that only a tiny fraction of these watches made it into space does not mean that the remainder were not qualified to do so. They are not replicas.
Then call them "Spacewatch" 😉
 
D
Posts
886
Likes
468
gbesq gbesq
Not really. The Speedmaster Professional models using calibers 321, 861 and 1861 were qualified by NASA for manned space flight and EVA. The fact that only a tiny fraction of these watches made it into space does not mean that the remainder were not qualified to do so. They are not replicas.

That's absolutely correct.
At any time, any of them could be taken off someone's wrist and handed over to anybody who needs to use them for the purpose the type was qualified for. Assuming they were in proper working order👎

The same thing goes for the Sea-Dwellers except they were not type approved in any way other than pressure testing at Rolex.
 
D
Posts
886
Likes
468
Mouse_at_Large Mouse_at_Large
Only a teeny, tiny percentage of Speedmasters have actually been to the moon. Everything else is a replica/homage/successor (depending on how far it's strayed from the original spec).

Just like most Rolex Deep Sea Sea-Dwellers don't see anything more deep than a swimming pool and my Glycine Airman was never used by a Vietnam War helicopter pilot.

It's just a name.

It's only ever been just a name.
The difference is what's backing up the name and the integrity which underpins it.
 
DoctorEvil
Posts
1,429
Likes
2,715
Mouse_at_Large Mouse_at_Large
Then call them "Spacewatch" 😉
I was just thinking that!
If one wanted to get nit-picky then only ref 105.003, 105.012 and 145.012 should be referred to as "Moonwatches" as they're the only ones that have actually been to the moon's surface. All other Speedmaster Professional references should therefore be "Spacewatches" as you say.
 
DoctorEvil
Posts
1,429
Likes
2,715
cvalue13 cvalue13
Do you happen to know on which test parameters the other watches tested by NASA fared worse? (Not because I take you to be a super-NASA fan, but instead perhaps because if your eyes ever passed across that info it might have stuck with you given your expertise.)

Sounds like there was a good chance all the watches did just fine on this vacuum test 😁
According to this source, the Longines candidate failed the vacuum test. It's crystal popped off.
https://www.twentytwoten.com/1574/nasa-testing-regime-omega-speedmaster-moonwatch/
 
P
Posts
105
Likes
122
cvalue13 cvalue13
I’d like to see where Omega corporate publicly stated that the 3861 retains the “endorsement of NASA.” (I believe separately Omega corporate has said they subjected the 3861 to the standardized tests, etc.)

An OB salesperson, in contrast, have been known to say all kinds of things.

I am not going to call my OB liars, especially when they contacted Omega corporate directly. I would believe them over internet speculation.

That much I do understand: though the distinction here, I think, is that those prior “update” versions have been issued by NASA to its astronauts and taken on missions/EVAs/etc., no?

For the reasons you state, it seems likely NASA may do the same in the future with the 3861, but that nonetheless remains to be seen in the future.

This doesn’t in any way diminish the 3861 as an incredible watch; but it does separate perhaps the marketing from the (present) facts.

As I said there have been no Space missions since the new version was released. Jeff Bezos and crew took the 3861 into Space that is fact.
 
P
Posts
105
Likes
122
D derv
I love my 3861. It’s a seriously awesome watch with an incredible lineage, but NASA isn’t using mechanical Speedmasters on the ISS, even during EVAs, and haven’t for quite a while. I doubt NASA would bother with certifying equipment that they don’t use, with Omega being the one with something to lose. Hence the, “we tested it to the same standards, just like in 1965” on the case back.

The fact that it could work fine during an EVA or on the lunar surface is cool enough for me, and with the new movement and upgrades, probably even better. The Russians are still flying Speedmasters pretty regularly, though who knows what model.
I am watching Disney's Among the stars and I did spot a speedy or two in the ISS as recently as last year. The Astronauts are still wearing them as well.
 
ckhaing
Posts
489
Likes
2,017
So -
Can The 2021 Omega Speedmaster Moonwatch Professional Still Be Considered A Moonwatch?

the answer is "no"
because it has been not on the moon or near the moon?

it can be called "last omega in space" (from july 2021)?
 
83 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

Robert-Jan

From The Archives: How The Omega Speedmaster Became The Moonwatch

Robert-Jan Modern Omega Watches
R
RoyalTick
Posts
2
Views
2K
Robert-Jan

The White Omega Speedmaster Moonwatch — Better Than The Silver Snoopy Award?

Robert-Jan Modern Omega Watches
bsowers34
bsowers34
Posts
42
Views
11K
Robert-Jan

A Hands-On Introduction To Two New Bicolor Omega Speedmaster Professional Moonwatch Models

Robert-Jan Modern Omega Watches
jcdevoe26
jcdevoe26
Posts
56
Views
8K
jose75

OMEGA Speedmaster Moonwatch Professional 310.30.42.50.01.001

jose75 Private Watch Sales
jose75
jose75
Posts
0
Views
1K
mdgrwl

Omega Speedmaster Moonwatch 3861 OEM Clasp STZ013815 ( excellent )

mdgrwl Watch Parts and Accessories For Sale
mdgrwl
mdgrwl
Posts
0
Views
157
mdgrwl

Omega Speedmaster Moonwatch Sapphire - 3861 - 310.30.42.50.01.002 (excellent)

mdgrwl Watches For Sale
mdgrwl
mdgrwl
Posts
1
Views
764