I am sure those who are intending to give up this piece will be gleefully welcomed by those who are in the further ends of the queue. And even more so by those who were unable to get on the wait list which figuratively speaking has a wait line longer than the distance from land's end to john o' groats (heck It should really be from the earth to the moon and back). Just be prepared to take the full risk on the one that got away with open eyes. Or potentially pay a dear lot more if you change minds later and decide to get her back.
Truly, I love her - I love her not conundrum/ FOMOist

 

For those giving up their spot in line there is always the new Massena Lab release to go to at 1/3 the price.

 

I'm not sure, I didn't see the movie, maybe I'll have to give it a watch.

Instruments definitely weren't off, they just didn't use computer assist for the DPS burn

I've listened to the actual audio recording and read the logs. Honestly didn't seem like thatttt big of a deal compared to some of the other midcourse corrections that they needed to make. I don't think for this portion they were able to have a visual of the earth for alignment out of the module, and in either case the rocket angles were locked for the burn. I'm not an expert so I maybe wrong, but I don't think for this type of correction, seeing the earth would have any impact on their actions. I would think that they just do the math or someone from the ground does the math and relays, rather than aligning by sight at 150k miles away...

Imagine if they had tried to use this "feature" to time the actual event. I'd be sweating bullets for the 8 seconds that snoopy was behind the moon, wondering if I had actually started the time.

 

I think they had to shutdown everything they had to conserve power save for the very absolute minimum to preserve life and the barest communication with earth. you also cant relay when to start and stop to them (as the distance from earth to the module is large so there is a time delay between sending the signals for this from earth and them astronauts on board receiving and reacting to it - wont be accurate)

 

I got myself in two lists in two separate countries. Hopefully I will succeed at least in one of them. One is OB and as of them will be getting it within this year. Second one is an AD and they say next year second quarter.

 

u are hoarding

 

That would be The Decade Watch for me! I can’t allow myself to miss it!

 

Me guilty too ( hoarding). Anyway not much anniversary pieces after this piece for a while from here

 

One or two on here being over dramatic and wayyyyyyy to serious about the novelty factor of the case back and what it's about, think you should just all agree to disagree i can't wait to show it to my nieces and nephews and watch their faces light up when they see the module appear, only thing i'm not looking forward to is the word "again"

 

Well the oxygen tank explosion meant they had to adjust the re-entry angle from free-return in order to make the entry more shallow to speed up the return before they ran out of power. So yes they did power a lot of things down, but I don't think core instrumentation needed for the correction was one of them.

By relay from the ground I meant the math and calc for the burn - obviously they're not relaying the actual signal for the engine timing lmao. They probably just did the calculation on board and then confirmed with Houston.

My point was that they're not just flying by visuals/feel. Basically just a lot of geometry, physics, and math. Lot of people on the ground providing support and crunching the numbers and doing the trajectory planning as well. If anything, checking the visuals would be after the fact and would need to perpendicular to the stars, not necessarily the earth. If you're not seeing stars then you've already messed up pretty badly.

 

No revisionist conjectures needed. Here is the actual transcript from nasa archives. Note what it says” before that however they will have to adjust their trajectory at least once more, without the use of the GUIDANCE COMPUTER in the POWERED DOWN lunar module...” and you can read the transcript where it says under lapsed time 104:35:53 ...time of ignition ... in this case since they are not using the computer to control the burn. It is simply used as a familiar term in filling the PAD. Timing will be performed manually”
https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap13fj/19day5-themanualcoursecorrection.html

 

Honestly I'm not sure if you have reading comprehension issues or my writing is that unclear, but what are you insinuating here as my "revisionist conjecture?" I never said they were using the computer to control the burn, and I never disputed that it was a DPS manual engine burn. All I said is that they were using the data given by the onboard instrumentation to calculate the burn times using math / geometry.

How do you think they came up with the 15 second figure? You think they pulled it out of their ass or just aimed visually? There's many inputs and variables that went into the burn and I guarantee you they were monitoring other stats besides just the time elapsed.

 

I'm not sure, I didn't see the movie, maybe I'll have to give it a watch.

Instruments definitely weren't off, they just didn't use computer assist for the DPS burn

I've listened to the actual audio recording and read the logs. Honestly didn't seem like thatttt big of a deal compared to some of the other midcourse corrections that they needed to make.
(if you have done that with actual audio recording and reading of the logs, it suggest you have provided to the readers here an accurate account . But your conclusion that it was not a big deal with the way you wrote 'thatttt'. Yet this is not the case, from the records they had only a narrow 2 degrees angle to meet with that most critical 14 seconds timing of ignition being significantly important of the trajectory of getting this angle right.)


I don't think for this portion they were able to have a visual of the earth for alignment out of the module, and in either case the rocket angles were locked for the burn. I'm not an expert so I maybe wrong, but I don't think for this type of correction, seeing the earth would have any impact on their actions.
(WRONG. they were piloting the spacecraft visually with the earth in sight - one was controlling the left and right (yaw), another was with the up and down (pitch) while the third was timing with the speedmaster)

I would think that they just do the math or someone from the ground does the math and relays, rather than aligning by sight at 150k miles away...
(the maths was done from the ground, but the astronauts had to execute it because of the distress state of the spacecraft. Moreover the spacecraft was not supposed to be joined together - landing module and command module - on the way home (the landing module was supposed to be detached on the the moon - which changed the dynamics and affected the controls )


Imagine if they had tried to use this "feature" to time the actual event. I'd be sweating bullets for the 8 seconds that snoopy was behind the moon, wondering if I had actually started the time.

(it was all that they got - systems have been damaged - they had no choice.)

 

I've enquired with my local AD (in Spain) and they called Omega to verify when (and if at all) they could expect the Snoopy 3. The answer was that it should come in in the later half of Q1/2021. I was given the option to order one, without deposit and the ability to decide if I actually want to buy it after trying it on.

 

Good for you, hope u can get it and you like it. And like the mission, hopefully your post has put us back on course to discuss the main topic of the thread: the watch

 

It wasn't a that big of a deal. The real big deal was the PC+2 burn that allowed them to splashdown in the south pacific. That burn had a much tighter tolerance, and was extremely accurate. How big of a deal do you think MCC 5 was if they didn't even bother to power up PGNS? They even initiated earlier than scheduled because the timing wasn't that critical. MCC 5 and 7 were just to steepen the EI angles slightly, but the PC+2 burn was the one that really saved them imo.

They aligned the attitude using a combination of Earth terminator in the COAS as well as stars and sun in the Window and AOT to confirm alignment. After the pre-burn alignment was confirmed it was sent to the AGS. Pitch and roll were controlled by 2 people using the TTCA and the third guy was calling out engine events and timing. No one was controlling yaw, it was in automatic hold mode by the AGS - that was the whole point of the alignment. The visuals were only used for the pre-burn alignment.

My original point was that they didn't power off all instrumentation to fly visually. During the actual burn, they were referencing the FDAI and computers. Just because they chose not to boot up PGNS doesn't mean they powered down all computers and instrumentation. The visuals were just for pre-burn attitude alignment, everything else was still monitored via instrumentation.

I was talking about the "feature" of the snoopy back to time the engine off, not of watches in general.

 

Indeed.

At this point I feel like I've learned more about NASA mission protocols and sequences than about the Omega watch that is the ostensible subject of the thread. OTOH, we've also had a glimpse into the age-old question of whether a mass-produced consumer artifact can accurately recapitulate a complex historical event.

The answer: it can't.

Also, would be helpful to have more images of the watch in real-world lighting conditions and on more real-world wrists. I'm looking forward to getting a better sense of how the dial, handset and bezel interact with light, and whether the modest increase in thickness has this speedy pro wearing any differently to, say, the hesalite or sandwich models. And how distracting the 50th Ann banner above Snoopy might prove to be.

 

you mean you dont want to continue how snoopys butt is 14 millimetres of a 14th of a second too fast going round the earth anymore?

 

This thread certainly veers off in tangents. At least no one is talking about deposits, investment, or value retention.

 

PC+2 was an unnecessary manoeuvre as far as their survival was concerned. It was done only to not splashdown in the Indian Ocean, where it would have taken more time to recover them. As they saw it as a very low risk manoeuvre with high benefits, they decided to go for it. If it would have been risky, they would have stay on the free-return trajectory (12 hours longer)

On the contrary, MCC 5 was necessary as the drift caused by the water sublimation would have put them out of the entry corridor. They had a timeframe of 30min to perform that correction. The time was not critical, but the duration was: an overburn would have been dramatic because it would have required a correction with the minus-x thrusters, which would have damaged the CM...

The PGNS was not used because it was consuming too much power and the spacecraft was designed to be operated without it.

MCC 7 was requested by the AEC to ensure the RTG and its plutonium ends up in the Tonga Trench, but it was not necessary for the crew safety..