Whilst the following passage…

“What troubles me about Omega’s history with the Speedmaster is that all Omega ever did after they found out their watch was approved was advertise and promote it. Not a bad thing at all, but don’t you think that if you were really proud of an accomplishment like this and really were committed to creating a watch for space, you’d actually take the time and work with NASA to improve it? They never have have they? In preparation for this article, I even came across a few examples of Speedmasters failing on missions.”

…is pretty much on the mark if we’re talking about the 3570.50, Omega have produced a watch built specifically for Astronauts and Pilots: The X-33 Speedmaster (3290.50 & 3291.50). I’ll admit that the X-33 isn’t used for EVA’s owing to its quartz module, and maybe this counts against it compared to the Spacewalk (which will go on an EVA or two). In other areas of its design however , one can really see the input of NASA and the various pilots who contributed to its inception.

Furthermore, Omega state that they’re “…building a watch for the next generation of Space travel…” on their website. Lastly, I can’t see Omega letting go of the NASA endorsement. Its worth far to much in terms of revenue and prestige to the brand to let another company “get in on the deal“.

As others here suggest, it’ll be interesting to see the two companies go in a, head-to-head competition to develop further products for Space exploration.

Thanks,

Alex

I haven’t come across any information about NASA ever turning down any attempts by Omega to submit either an improved Speedmaster or collaborate together on a new EVA watch. I do know that in the Omega Time Capsule book, there is mention of what appears to be an internal NASA memo about making improvements to the mechanical Speedmaster. The improvements cited were a replacement of the tachymeter bezel with a diver bezel and the addition of luminous compound to the chronograph hands. The document stated that those suggestions were never implemented. It doesn’t say if this was an internal NASA decision or if Omega declined to implement the suggestions.

If you do have some sources for that information, please let us know. I’m a big Speedmaster fan, and always try to keep up with that watches history.

Your last sentence was very astute. Good one!

As always, thanks for reading.

petew

/ martin

Thanks for the kind words. It’s always nice to know that people are appreciating the content on GMT+9. My understanding on the problems of conventional battery powered watches in space is that battery performance drops drastically as the temperature gets colder. In space, not only can “no one hear you scream” , but it’s very very very cold, and anyone who lives in a northern climate knows how batteries perform (in their cars) when the temperature gets cold. Heck, I wear a Suunto outside my jacket when I ski. Sometimes when I go out on super cold single digit temperature (fahrenheit) days, my low battery power indicator lights up.

That said, I do know that some satellites have back up battery power, so batteries to an extent must be able to function in the space environment. Based on the little research I’ve done, it seems that there are provisions within the satellites to keep components heated to an extent.

I have also read that NASA is not happy with batteries as a secondary power source due to short lifespans, and they (NASA) are working on other solutions. Primary power sources seem to be solar and nuclear. But anyway, I am rambling a bit, I haven’t even discussed how the whole concept of an environment without an atmosphere will change the way objects can even get cold!

Bottom line…I think it’s the temperature that would cause concern for a conventional quartz watch, with the battery being susceptible to failure.

Thanks for reading,

petew

One thing I could not understand too well in Kohei’s article
in Timezone, was that quartz watches were eliminated because
of the possible poor functioning of the electronics in space.
Doesn’t the Springdrive mechanism include some kind of electronic
circuitry at the end of the drive itself? What is your opinion
regarding this issue?

As far as I am concerned, NASA should pick any watch made by a
company that has the capability and also the financial muscle to
devote a certain amount of time and money to make a space watch.
As you have mentioned in this article, Omega certainly was not
willing to do this. In other words, if the Seiko Spacewalk
were to have some failing components in the first trial in space,
I am sure the company will come back with further studies and
models in the future.
Thanks again for great articles.