|
|
|
| | View Thread | Return to Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg | |
|---|
Posted By: Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area) <cmaddox@xnet.com> (power.xnet.com)
In Response To: Both, the 321 and 861 went to the moon! (long) (Michael Stein (Cologne-Germany))
Date: 9/22/1 - 23:37:05
Both, the 321 and 861 went to the moon! (long)
Posted By: Michael Stein (Cologne-Germany) <tz@moonwatch.de> (a1as17-p88.due.tli.de)
Date: 9/22/1 - 20:34:19
There have been a lot of guesses, if the Speedmaster cal. 321 or its successor or maybe both have been used in space missions.
Hmmm...
It's not necessary to speculate about it. There is no secret and everything is outlined by Marco Richon in his "Omega Saga".
You are welcome to make conclusions if you want to, but I don't necessarily agree or disagree... However, I do not feel comfortable making the conclusions that you are apparently making...
He is referring to that question in several places, but the most detailed passage is the following:
"On peut ici se poser la question de savoir pourquoi les premières Speedmasters portées sur la Lune seront équipées du calibre 321 et non pas de son successoeur. C'est tout simplement parce qu'elles auront déjà été dûment testées par la NASA, ce qui ne sera pas encore le cas de suivantes. Celles-ci prendront progressivement le relais au début des années septante."
My French is not the best and even worse than my English, however, I tried it and it gives you at least an idea:
"One could ask for the reason why the first Speedmasters which went to the moon were equipped with the caliber 321 and not with its successor. The answer is quite simple: Because they already had been regularly tested by the NASA, which was not yet the case with the successors. Those were gradually brought in from the early 70's on."
Well AltaVista translated it as:"One can put here the question to know why first Speedmasters related to the Moon will be equipped with gauge 321 and not with its successor. It is quite simply because they already will have been duly tested by NASA, which will not be yet the case of following. Those will gradually take over at the beginning of the years seventy."Pretty close. Close enough to make sense of it either way... Your French seems sound, or at the very least as sound as AltaVista's. I think it's better! =)
So, Mr. Richon seems to be in agreement that the c.321's were the movements that at least the astronauts on the early landings were supplied with...
Marco Richon is referring to the to the strong rules set up by NASA's Flight Crew Support. Once tested and certified it was impossible for the supplier and everybody else to replace a watch or even a single part of it.
I'm not directly or indirectly conversant with NASA's equipment procedures so I really can't confirm or deny this assertion... But it makes abundant sense that NASA would not send astronauts on a mission with a piece of equipment with defined specified requirements unless it had been thoroughly tested and passed those tests. This will come up again later...
The "System and Component Historical Record" was virtually a record for everything what happened to/with the watch. He gives an example:
"Homologation et service aprèsvente: La Flight Crew Support Division du Centre des missions spatiales habitées édite en novembre une reglementation trés détailée sur le procédures à appliquer lors de l'homologation et de l'entretien des Speedmaster. Il est entre autres prévu que chaque pièce doit être soumise à un examen systématique tous le six moins, que chaque nouvelle montre doit être complètement démontée et nettoyée que les manipulations du mouvement ou de la boîte doiventse faire avec des gants nylon (blancs!) pour éviter tout contamination corporelle, que les mêmes lubrifiants d'origine doivent être utilisés durant tout la durée de vie de la montre, et qu'un "Journal de bord" doit être établi pour chaque chronographe individuel."
I try it again (forgive me):
"Homologation and maintenance: The Flight Crew Support Division of the Space Missions Center had published a very detailed regulation ( in November?) on the applicable procedures for the homologation and maintenance of the Speedmaster. It's inter alia required that:
"Inter alia???
- each part must be subjected to a systematic examination every 6 months,
- that each new watch must be completely dismantled and cleaned,
- that any handling of the movement or the case must be done with (white!) nylon-gloves to avoid any particular contamination,
- that the same original lubricants must be used during the entire lifespan of the watch and
- that a "Log Book" must be drawn up for each chronograph individually."
Since I've done the AltaVista previously and your translation seems to be reasonably close to AltaVista I'll dispense with that...This is the first time I've seen anyone purport that NASA personnel were involved in the interior maintenance of mission watches (highlighted in Red above). Not to dispute Mr. Richon, but do we have any other evidence to confirm that NASA personnel acted as watchmakers in this regard? This may be quite possible, but do/did NASA retain watchmakers on the payroll?
The way Marco Richon is reporting about the question which version actually was used for the missions, shows IMO, that Omega wasn't too comfortable with the idea that a watch would be part of an important PR-campaign which in fact wasn't available any longer. I'm quite sure they had liked to provide NASA with the more recent version. Maybe this is the reason, why a detailed information is so thin?
This paragraph really confuses me. I can't make the intuitive leap about Omega's comfort level with regards to pre-Pro/Pro Speedmasters based on what text you've quoted and translated thus far in this posting... Are you concluding, Michael, that Omega pressured NASA to change to the new model midstream?While the information you've posted does bring additional information to the puzzle, I don't see that it really clarifies the specifics as to which movements were used and when.
I don't think I or anyone else has ever said that it was not possible that a c.861 didn't make it to the moon, especially on a later mission, just that there isn't any compelling evidence that one did so. At least that we've been able to uncover thus far...
But from all that I'm quite sure Omega used the first chance to change or heal that and to replace the moonwatch. And that was the case in year 1972 when the official supplier had to undergo the second test series with regard to the "Buy American Act" of 1933 forced by Bulova. For me the main evidence is that Omega changed to another case manufacturer, the Star Watch Case Co., Michigan, which Omega acquired only some time later. The change to a domestic manufacturer and a local casement was necessary to comply to the requirements of that Act. (Also the competitor, Bulova, wasn't able to provide a bigger stake of homemade production).
I think I've talked about this. The issue really boiled down to, was the Omega an predominantly American Product. Because of the waves that Omar Bradley (then on retainer with Bulova for his "pull" with congress) Omega had to scramble to figure out a way to make the Speedmaster 51% American manufacture if it came to pass that Bradley/Bulova was going to get their way and force NASA to use an American product. As it turned out, Bulova was not particularly successful in making their candidate watch (for use in missions occurring after the congressional hearings in 1972 - which means possibly Apollo 16, but most likely only Apollo 17) 51% American made, so the point was moot if Omega was predominantly Swiss or American Manufacture...One of the side effects of Bulova's efforts was a complete accounting of the Speedmaster that NASA had purchased and their disposition...
So, we have 97 Speedmasters acquired by NASA up to the time of the survey of which 20 remained unused. Again it is a leap to conclude that Omega would have forced/asked/persuaded NASA to swap out these existing watches in inventory with new, essentially untested models. While I won't conclude that NASA chose not switch them I tend to think that they didn't. But again that's my opinion of probability, not a statement of fact.
So the questions become:
Another point which supports my assumption is that Omega also took the chance to present NASA the new Speedmaster Mark II . They had to draw back this model, but only due to the mineral crystal it had.
I have not seen any material or evidence to support the contention that the Mark II was ever submitted to NASA for consideration as a potential replacement for the moonwatch during the Apollo program or subsequently... Michael if you have material or evidence that advances this please present it. I'd love to see it. Personally, if I'm choosing which Speedmaster I'd take to the moon with me I'd take the Mark II over a moonwatch case without any hesitation... The heavier case, mineral crystal, hidden integrated lugs, etc. make the Mark II a better choice in my opinion...
Anyway - those huge changes in production have been more than appropriate, IMO, to equippe the Speedmaster with the latest movement, the caliber 861. Now the Moon Watch was in line with the actually produced and offered Omega models. Marco Richon describes that movement inter alia as an improvement which was better, more accurate and cheaper to produce than the older one. (Well - :-)) - I wouldn't agree with him in some places).
Again, I'm not familiar with the phrase "Inter alia", what specifically does that mean? Could it be screwed balance (vs. smooth balance), or Lever/Cam (vs. Column Wheel) or arched bridge (vs. trapezoidal)?
After all I'm quite sure the ST 145.022 has been the Moon Watch from 1972 on.
I'm happy one of us can be that sure. I'm not, personally.I suspect that c.861's did make it on US space flights after the last Apollo mission (ASTP) and maybe even before. But I would not be surprised one bit if the Speedmaster that John Young wore on the first Shuttle flight had a c.321 movement.
Best regards,
Michael
Michael, I hope you understand that I am just treating your assumption(s) the same way that I treat my assumptions and everyone else treats my assumptions. When trying to solve a mystery we put the evidence in to a fire which burns away the impurities and what remains, if anything, we piece together with all of the other evidence, hopefully to have enough to make a usable picture.I'm not sure what you've posted answers more questions than it raises or not. Hopefully the Omega Saga will yield more information on the subject or I suspect someone will likely be pressured into doing buckets of further research on the topic... I wonder who is the poor bloke that will get suckered into that one...
-- Chuck
| | View Thread | Return to Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg | |
|---|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 |
Copyright © 2001-2004 A Bid Of Time, Inc., All Rights Reserved
Back to top of page | Return to Time Zone Home Page
Copyright © 2001-2004 A Bid Of Time, Inc., All Rights Reserved
E-mail: info@TimeZone.com
