|
|
|
| | 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: There are more answers... (Michael Stein (Cologne-Germany))
Date: 9/23/1 - 19:26:10
Continued from Part 1...
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.
Michael, it is not important what Mr. Richon, Mr. Deithelm, you, I, or anyone else can confirm, but rather what the evidence can confirm.This is my point... Follow the evidence, not the narrative.
He does know all that stuff in detail from first hand sources of both Omega and NASA sides.
And Mr. Deithelm does not? What about the pictures and paperwork that I and others have posted? How about the other official documents reproduced in "The Moonwatch Book" and the "Time Capsule" book that have not been scanned in and posted?I do not feel these pieces of evidence are secondary to Mr. Richon's narrative. I feel photo's and documents are primary sources, people's recollections are next in the relevance hierarchy.
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 .
And so did Imai, with his book, and Dowling/Hess with their book, and they have mistakes in them. I am basing what I have written on what I've read, including documents reproduced in the Moonwatch Book, the Time Capsule and Omega Saga (the Gordon photograph)...At the end of my article on the subject I stated 13 things that we can conclude at this point... Please take a look at items 8 through 13:
8. David Scott wore a Waltham Chronograph on the surface of the moon during the third EVA of the Apollo 15 mission.1. Which points out additional facts:1. Astronauts were permitted to and did wear personally purchased watches on Apollo missions as backup's to their NASA mandated and provided Speedmaster's.2. Astronauts could easily have worn any one of a number of other watches on the moon other than Speedmasters in general, and c.321's in particular.
9. Thus it is possible that an Astronaut could have purchased a Speedmaster Pro c.861 as his backup watch.
10. Indeed it is possible and maybe even likely that some c.861's were worn on the moon by Moonwalker's:
1. "The toward the seventies, the NASA has probably also used the replacement movement caliber 861" -- John Diethelm from within TZ Classic 381.11. However, looking at the wording of John's quote, it is speculation, not fact.
12. We really don't know specifically what watches were worn during the other moon missions, or the Skylab missions.
13. It appears that the Apollo-Soyuz Astronauts did not wear commemorative c.861 model Speedmasters
1. It appears that Deke Slayton might (and probably) wore a c.321 during the ASTP (Apollo-Soyuz Test Project).I believe if you read the underlined passages that I am keeping an open mind as to the possibility and even probability that a (or even several) c.861 movement Speedmaster(s) made a Lunar journey. Even though I have been unable to find any solid (read pictures or documents) evidence to support this possibility.
Michael, don't get me wrong, I am not disputing that Mr. Richon is a knowledgeable person on the subject, which you seem to feel I am. I'm looking at the pictures and the NASA documents. The Gordon picture is actually a scan from Mr. Richon's book that Bill Sohne did for me. I'm going to give greater weight to documents and photos to narratives every time unless the person giving the narrative is an Apollo Moon Mission astronaut who are really the only people who are absolutely canon in this case.
To forestall waste of your time I'll state I doubt that I ever would agree that we should take the writings of any one person (aside from an Lunar mission astronaut) over photographic or written evidence of these specific watches.
I also believe in keeping an open mind and not making any conclusions until the time comes that we can absolutely make them. I believe my postings previously to this thread and within this thread are consistent in this regard.
The main difference we have is that you state "Both, the 321 and 861 went to the moon!", I say that the c.321 went to the moon (as did Scott's Waltham and Swigert's Rolex) and the c.861 possibly went too" It's a subtle difference, but it's a significant one.
BTW: "inter alia" is not watch related and means "among others". It Latin and used like " et alteri" or "vice versa" (et al.).
COOL! I'm up to 14 words of French, or in this case Latin, words... LOL! =)
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!).
Michael! This is fine. I have no problem with people guessing, I do this myself. But I really appreciate that you are stating you are guessing. I try to be very careful to state things I write which I'm not 100% sure about with what I call "wiggle words/phrases" like "seems to indicate", "makes me lean towards the belief that", etc. There is nothing wrong with this.Expressing an opinion is fine, but if someone states something as a fact, it can be contested, it will be contested, and it should be contested. If it is fact it will stand up. If it is not it won't.
Do not think for a moment that what I have typed on the subject has not been questioned in the past and likely will be questioned again in the future. Check out the addentum's I've written...
It would have been very reasonable {to think NASA had a Watchmaker under Contact}.
It is not unreasonable at all. NASA had huge budgets at the time and people detailed to see to the quality of every single component that comprised the program(s). So I don't contest this, but I won't state for a fact that NASA did have a watchmaker on staff. I prefer to be careful...
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.
Michael, I did not state my thoughts on this specific topic as a conclusion. Here is specifically what I had said in the previous message in this thread: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). {It is the first time I've heard this} Not to dispute Mr. Richon {whom I am not disputing at least in this case}, but do we have any other evidence to confirm that NASA personnel acted as watchmakers in this regard? {I don't believe asking if there is additional evidence to confirm this is disputing Mr. Richon} This may be quite possible {See, I admit it's possible}, but do/did NASA retain watchmakers on the payroll? {I do not know, so I am asking...}Thus I am not drawing any conclusions in the passage that pertains to this specific topic. On the contrary I believe that I am keeping an open mind and asking for further collaborating evidence to make it rock solid.
Now we are at the point when I started to make some assumptions.
O.K., here on out you are making 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. {to make some assumptions}
Making assumptions are fine, as long as they are stated as such: assumptions. The title of your original post was "Both, the 321 and 861 went to the moon! (long)". Michael, that is not stated as an assumption, it is a statement and reads as a conclusion.
It would be too easy, if you only had to look into some books, that would be only descriptive then.
If it were this easy then anyone could do this.
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.
This is the core of my point. You are convinced that based on what you've stated that conclusions can be drawn. Maybe you can for yourself, I have a different standard to what I can conclude. Again, I concluded 13 things in my article on the topic. But they are pretty open-minded conclusions and they are subject to change should new evidence come to light (like if Aldrin's Speedmaster is found and it has a c.861 in it) <-- Wouldn't that shake everything up?
I'll use a historic moment in the world of physics to illustrate my point: Newton's Laws of gravitation and motion were considered the state of the art until Einstein came along. Conclusions are only as good as the evidence used to reach them.
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.
Not only I, Michael, but others as well... It's also not written anywhere that people other than I can't develop information, evidence and make their own conclusions either... In other words, you are not off the hook on this, and neither am I.
I never said Omega pressured NASA in any respect. How could they and why should they?
I was unclear which is why I asked:"Are you concluding, Michael, that Omega pressured NASA to change to the new model midstream?"I was asking you if you concluded that, not that you said that. I still don't know if this is a conclusion or a suspicion or an assumption. I have no problem with a suspicion or an assumption as long as it's stated as such. If there were additional tests of the Speedmaster in 1972 (I'm not disputing) then there would be little or no reason for Omega to pressure as they were already considering them, no?
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.
Omega might have liked that, I agree. I don't know that I would agree that the c.861 is necessarily superior or better to the c.861. It is certainly less expensive to manufacturer and because it has a lower part count there perhaps is less to go wrong with it. But the c.321 is still a heck of a movement. They are both excellent watch movements.
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.
Mainly because I don't have the book you are quoting and have never seen it much less had the opportunity to flip through it, or read/translate it.
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):
Wish I could (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!!
I'll take your word on all of this as I don't have the book.
Those facts will answer some of your questions while others are just not applicable anymore.
O.K., they answer some of the questions, but these answers are still not conclusive to the statement in your title "Both, the 321 and 861 went to the moon! (long)"... At least not to me...
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.
O.K. (again not disputing), however apparently the Mark II was rejected for some reason because to my knowledge NASA never used the Mark II for any manned space flights. At least officially. Like I said I prefer the Mark II myself for anything requiring ruggedness. As I feel it is a much more rugged watch than the original moonwatch case. I believe the Rolex's in use at the time Jack Swigert wore his GMT also had a plastic crystal, I'm not sure about the Waltham Scott used, but it occurs to me that Mineral Crystals can't be all that serious of a requirement if they allow astronauts to wear anything they want as a backup watch. But this is an assumption on my part...
I really hope that this now was enlightening enough. (I needed most of my time today for that).
Welcome to my world Michael...Michael, you aren't going to get a great deal sympathy from me on this... It comes with the territory... I typed in the information contained in the Which Movements article three times and it took me six hours to compose each time. I didn't make the precaution of saving my work in TZ Classics until the third time (so two of the times are my fault). I spent a sizable chunk of time last night and this afternoon on this. Each article I've developed has taken a great deal of time to research and compose as do many of my posts. At anytime someone can come along and post a query about anything I write and I have to generate a lengthy addendum.
If this were easy anyone could and would research and document these things. It's not easy and it does take time. <shrugs shoulders> That is the way it is...
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.
Um, OK... I'll simply summarize my beliefs on the topic...The c.321 Speedmaster was worn on (as was Scott's Waltham) and near (as was Swigert's Rolex) the moon (Diethelm, pictures and documents as proof) and it is possible that a c.861 Speedmaster may have been worn near the moon as well. But I don't have any firm evidence to confirm the part about the c.861.As for later missions, we really don't know for certain when NASA switched over to c.861's, or how distinct the transition was, or if any c.321's remain in the pool of watches available for use during missions. So I can not conclude anything on these points without more information.
I also continue to believe the 13 conclusions I've already stated.
You can believe or conclude what you wish to, but I might not agree. And I reserve the right to say I don't agree and why. Fair enough?
Best regards,
Michael
Cheers!-- 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
