Probably not, but remember … the Speedmasters used in the Apollo missions were off the shelf watches and those watches only came with hesalite. In fact, most sports watches (even those by Omega, Rolex, Heuer, etc) were only offered with acrylic crystals.
It would have been difficult to find a chronograph with a sapphire crystal in the 1960s.
I can say from personal experience that fragments of sapphire glass are no joke. I still have some pieces lodged under my thumbnail when that damn Spiralwinder caseback shattered 6 weeks ago. Now imagine no gravity and that stuff flying around the cabin ....
As to why they allow sapphire on the ISS, that should say something about the myth of being nervous about sapphire shattering.
. I think then, because the classic watch kept the Hesalite, people came up with a story and it stuck
But they use the x33 now. It has sapphire
NASA did the best they could. Those were some tough requirements.
Is acrylic really shatterproof? Nope. Neither is mineral or sapphire. Some are harder to shatter or break into smaller or larger pieces, but they can be shattered.
Mineral was more common during the tests. Mineral is more glass than sapphire, so maybe the requirements could have meant no mineral crystals? Or maybe they were just happy any watch survived the grueling tests and overlooked the shatterproof requirement. My opinion is that we watch nerds care about it more than NASA.
As to why they allow sapphire on the ISS, that should say something about the myth of being nervous about sapphire shattering.
The Speedmaster is worn on EVAs because it passed the tests and it works. No need to pay for more tests.
Yes.
That's why i mentioned that experience or time will tell.
NASA are only one bad event away from finding out if Saphire crystals are entirely suitable or preferable over Hesalite.
Having said that. The crystal on the X-33 is largely protected by the bezel as opposed to the crystals on watches back in the day protruding, which which placed them at greater risk of impact damage.
I imagine that NASA may have looked at the risk factors with using the X-33 and considered them to be miniscule in the modern age when balanced with any perceived practical advantage.
Besides.
It's not like they're going on any excursions on Artemis II.
