|
|
|
| | View Thread | Return to Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg | |
|---|
Posted By: Michael Stein (Cologne-Germany) <tz@moonwatch.de> (a1as04-p163.due.tli.de)
In Response To: I am not so sure as this leaves unanswered many things... > (Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area))
Date: 9/23/1 - 14:15:07
Chuck,
There are a lot of more answers to your questions you can find in that book. But you won't expect me to translate half the book (some 500 pages), will you?
I think there is no doubt about the fact, that Marco Richon is, as the curator of the Omega Museum, Biel, and author of the Omega Saga, the most knowledgeable person about the Speedmaster and its history. He is paid for that. It's his job doing researches on that for years now. And there's nobody in the world who has more chances to receive first hand information from all sources than him. So if he states something, I'll buy that.
When you are saying "So Mr. Richon seems to be in agreement....", please let me know with whom he is "in agreement"? I think it should read just the other way round, so one can only agree with him.
As for the main question I didn't deliver conclusions, but only facts. That question, whether the 321 or the 861 were used is definately answered and clearly steted by Marco Richon: "Celles-ci prendront progressivement de relais au dÈbut des annÈes septante." Period. What else should he mean when he mentions that? The introduction to the market? Certainly not. That took place in late 1968 with a lot of advertisement, since theys were proud to present an "improved" movement.
I another place he states: " 1942: Construction par Albert Piguet (Lemania) du calibre chronographe 27 CHRO C12; il engendrera le 321 en 1946, puis le 861 en 1968, qui Èquiperont tous deux la Montre de la Lune. Voir chap. 6." (Chap. 6 is related to space missions).
And especially here:
"Lancement du calibre 27 CHRO C12 qui est remarquable pour deux raisons:
1. c'est le plus petit calibre chronographe-bracelet du monde avec compteur 12 heures;
2. c'est l'ancÍtre des calibres 321 et 861, qui Èquiperont la cÈlËbre Speedmaster, sÈlectionnÈe par la NASA en 1965 pour tous ses astronautes et devenue "Montre de la Lune" en 1969."
And if you still aren't convinced, continue reading:
1978:.... Omega prÈsente (rem.: to NASA for the third testings) trois versions de sa Speedmaster: la "Professional" mÈchanique ý remontage manuel (cal. 861), la "125" automatique chronomËtre (cal. 1041) et la "Speedsonic" Èlectronique ý diapason (cal. 1255)..."
Any questions?
Now let me come to the testing procedures:
Chuck, please excuse, but it doesn't depend on what you can confirm. It's only important what Marco Richon confirms. He does know all that stuff in detail from first hand sources of both Omega and NASA sides. And don't forget he went through all those investigations many years before when all things were still very fresh in minds. Either he lived through the entire processes of development and certification or he collected all the information that have been available to him in behalf of the Omega Museum having the most excellent connections .
BTW: "inter alia" is not watch related and means "among others". It Latin and used like " et alteri" or "vice versa" (et al.).
As already mentioned, regarding the regulation of the Flight Crew Support Division, he only reported what they published by themselves. You posted a scan of that log book. And if one of their own rules has been such a close examination, it indeed would lead to the conclusion that they must have had someone who could deal with it. Maybe an Omega technician? (I'm guessing!).
It would have been very reasonable. Imagine that the Speedmaster that brought Apollo 13 back to earth had failed due to some dirt or whatever. They had to deal with everything which possibly could incur. Compared to the 24 billion US$ they did spend, this was a neglectible additional cost factor. But it's up to you to draw different conclusions.
Now we are at the point when I started to make some assumptions. I basicly think it's not only legit and comprehensible, but also necessary when you want to receive answers on questions which never have been raised or answered before. It would be too easy, if you only had to look into some books, that would be only descriptive then. It's the nature of an academic approach (and we are close to that with those issues) to draw conclusions from several other facts and different sources which only may provide some hints on the answers you are looking for. Based on that you are able to develop assumptions which may or may not be correct. However, those can be a good base for interesting discussions.
I never said Omega pressured NASA in any respect. How could they and why should they?
I was only assuming that they might have liked to see the current Speedmaster model going to the moon, not only from comprehensible PR reasons, but also since Omega was apparently deeply convinced (acc. to M.R.) that the 861 was an important improvement and clearly the better watch.
I don't know why you never heard about the second test series of year 1972. While the first testings had been made more secretly, the second were absolutely not. I don't want to get too much into details, otherwise I had to write a new book. Only the following in short (if you ask for sources, please refer to the Omega Saga):
- In August 1972 NASA invited 16 manufacturers (incl. Omega) to provide a list of their watches which would comply to the requirements set by MSC (Manned Spacecraft Center). Please note the plural in "watches".
- The 16 manufacturers were (in alphabetical order);
1. Breitling, 2. Bulova, 3. Elmore, 4. Elgin, 5. Forbes, 6. GP, 7. Gruen, 8. Hamilton, 9. Heuer, 10. Electronic Corp., 11. LeJour, 12. Longine-Wittnauer, 13. Omega, 14. Rolex, 15. Seiko, 16. Zodiac
- The testing programme was entirely different to the first one (detailed outlined in the Saga)
- Bulova alone provided 16 chronographs for the test.
- Apparantly this time NASA didn't buy the watches. At least Bulova offered them at US$ 1.00/each and Omega joined into that and met this price.
Sidenote: To do the first testings starting in 1962 (not 1965) NASA had bought the watches at Corrigan's in Houston. It is stated that they had to pay US$ 82.50 for a Speedmaster due to an excellent exchange rate versus the Swiss Franc at that time. When NASA conducted the third tests in 1978 they had to pay only US$ 0.01/each!!
Those facts will answer some of your questions while others are just not applicable anymore.
Regarding the presentation of the Mark II, it was aready announced and proposed to NASA when Robert Forster, Omega chief commercial officer, assisted by Peter Morf, commercial delegate USA, visited NASA in February 1969. At that time the Mark II wasn't even introduced to the market.
I really hope that this now was enlightening enough. (I needed most of my time today for that).
I can only advise anybody who ist interested in knowing more or needs to have some proof of what I was trying to reproduce here.
Best regards,
Michael
| | 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
