Further Thoughts on the Seiko Spacewalk
Photograph by Seiko
I’ve been thinking more and more about Seiko’s Spacewalk announcement and release. I’m starting to realize what a great marketing opportunity this could be for Seiko. So much so in fact that if I were Omega, I would be watching this project very closely.
As much as we all like to think that the Speedmaster is the end all to space watches, we have to remember that it won out in the space watch competition not because it was the clear cut winner, but really, because it was the best of the worst of the tested bunch. Based on my reading, none of the watches tested by NASA really performed admirably and anyone who’s read about these tests would have to agree. During one round of tests, the Speedmaster gained and lost up to 21 and 15 minutes respectively during one test, yet it was still picked as the winner since other watches actually did worse! I think that says a lot about the competition.
Seiko has designed watches for extreme explorations since the 1960’s. For the most part, they don’t adverstise this so the public doesn’t know much about where Seikos have been and what they’ve done. The Landmaster series of watches from Seiko were tested extensively in both the field and the lab, and it looks like the same could happen with the Spacewalk.
All aspects of the mission and their effects on the watch are being evaluated. In addition to the extreme environmental situations the Spacewalk will encounter, Seiko has tested launch and re-entry forces as well as ergonomic functionality.
I suspect that Seiko is not taking this mission lightly, and when Garriott performs his spacewalk, and when/if the Seiko performs flawlessly, you have to wonder if pressure could be put on NASA to add it to the approved list. After all, wouldn’t you want your astronauts to be using the finest equipment available?
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.
This new Spacewalk is the first watch ever designed from the ground up to perform in space. Chances are, it will not only perform admirably, but better (the limitations and effects of extreme temperature changes on mechanical escapements are well documented) than a Speedmaster in a Spacewalk situation.
If Seiko were REALLY smart, they’d buy a Speedmaster for Garriott to wear on his other wrist, and then test the two to see which watch really is the new master in space.
April 9th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
PeteW: Thank you for providing this series of articles
on the Seiko Spacewalk. This is the type of information
that makes a watch meaningful to my type of watch enthusiast.
You let us in to observe during the actual creation of a watch
and soon, we will be around to see its birth. It is an experience
very significant to that of a watch enthusiast, most likely we
will only experience a few of these experiences in our lifetimes.
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.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Hi diverwatch,
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
April 10th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Hi petew, you mention that Omega did not work with NASA to improve the Speedmaster. Is not one of the stories about Omega that they after a few years presented NASA with a new improved watch and NASA rejected it because they were happy with the exisiting Speedmaster ? That said, I would agreed with your comment that the orignal Speedmaster does not seem to be a great performer and that the Seiko Spacewalk is not only a great marketing exercise but also a major step forward in developing watches for extreme conditions. It also seems to have a much larger market than the new Rolex as potential spacewalkers would outnumber potential 13,000 meter divers
.
/ martin
April 11th, 2008 at 5:00 am
Hi martin,
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
May 30th, 2008 at 5:28 am
Hello Pete,
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