Community Stories

Why was the speedie manual for NASA?

Archer
Posts
27,966
Likes
71,290
dennisthemenace dennisthemenace
So the members over on WUS, the ones I've been calling twats for over a decade were right all along. Nasa did choose hesalite over sapphire for safety reasons. Who'd have thought?

Of course this would assume that there were chronographs that met all the other specs NASA wanted, except for the sapphire crystals. I don't care enough about this to do any research, but my gut tells me to doubt that there were any options out there that were rejected solely because they had a sapphire crystal...
 
U
Posts
25,980
Likes
27,647
Archer Archer
TL;DR Does it say in there that there were sapphire crystal chronographs that were rejected because of the crystal?

Yes - the Longines Wittnauer failed because the crystal warped and fell out. (I assume it was a caliber 332 / Valjoux 72 because of the era)
 
Archer
Posts
27,966
Likes
71,290
U ulackfocus
Yes - the Longines Wittnauer failed because the crystal warped and fell out. (I assume it was a caliber 332 / Valjoux 72 because of the era)

Sapphire warped? Searching the document for the word sapphire and not getting any results. Not sure this addresses the point I was making...
 
Dan S
Posts
21,669
Likes
49,117
I have always assumed that the chronographs that were submitted did not use sapphire because the specifications explicitly called for a "shatterproof" crystal. Neither glass nor sapphire could be considered shatterproof.
 
Foo2rama
Posts
17,748
Likes
26,933
Dan S Dan S
I have always assumed that the chronographs that were submitted did not use sapphire because the specifications explicitly called for a "shatterproof" crystal. Neither glass nor sapphire could be considered shatterproof.
That is specified in the document.
 
sevenhelmet
Posts
445
Likes
870
J jason10mm
Well, if my years of government service and dealing with purchasing requirements have taught me anything, it's that some budget analyst would have gotten ahold of the spec sheets in the contract and said "hang on, this 'automatic' function costs $100 more per watch but only saves an astronaut 30 seconds a day? That's $12,000/hrx2080 working hours in a year...Hey, I just saved us $24,576,000 in labor if we stick to winding!!!!" 😀

I, too, have worked in government service and acquisitions for years, and buy this explanation above all others. 😀

Dan S Dan S
Before you know it, we're going to be talking about jets with frictionless wheels taking off from treadmills. 😉

Dear God, not that again...
cat_cya.gif
 
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

TDBK

Why was the automatic chronograph a technical challenge?

TDBK Open Discussion
P
pongster
Posts
7
Views
1K
kov

Omega Speedmaster Digital LCD cal.1621 "Alaska IV" for NASA Shuttle Pilots

kov Private Watch Sales
kov
kov
Posts
6
Views
6K