Further thoughts...
|
There was a Re-Match for the title Posted By: Doug Sprott Date: 1/16/08 18:38 GMT
In Response To: 2001 is an amazing movie, but it's a movie... (Chicagoland Chuck Maddox)
There were a bunch of companies that asked NASA to redo the tests -namely Rolex- shortly after the selection and more testing was done at a later date. I had a huge long elaborate response, including details of the testing in the 1960's, in 1972 and 1978. Classic crashed on my machine and destroyed an hours worth of work. Poof!
In the mean time, Jeff's posted a link to Alan Nelson's article which covers most of the bases.
To my knowledge there was no competitive testing by NASA between the early 1960's testing, 1972 and 1978. While I'm sure Rolex was not pleased at not being the choice, it was a fait accompli in the 1960's.
Since Jeff's pointed to a supporting document to support the above, I'll comment on what's left.
Could The Count-Down have been one of those? I don't know when specificall the Count-Down was in production, but assuming that since the c.11 movement was available in 1969, it's reasonable to say it was possible. However, everything I've read about the 1972 testing has led me to believe that of the 16 companies notified by NASA of the additional testing for the Apollo 17 mission, only Bulova [who's always had it's nose out of joint because it wasn't selected for the Astronaut timepiece in addition to the Spacecraft instrument panel timekeeper] and Omega submitted samples for testing. Mr. Nelson covers the rest of that saga well.
It's possible, but I can't find any documentaion that confirms it was a candidate in 1972 or 1978.
Or is there documentation that says which were re-tested? Jeff's posted some. There are numerous passages on the web locatable via a Google search which say similar things.
The re-testing would have put it in the correct date. Yes, perhaps. But lets consider the Count-down for a moment: |
- This is one BIG HONKING watch. It's moderately flat, but it's HUGANTIC! Not the sort of thing you want to be banging around cramped spacecraft.
- This watch is HEAVY. I forget how many pounds of fuel it takes to lift a pound of material to the moon but it's substancial.
- The Crown Guards are very tight to the crown. Remember that NASA EVA suits have 23 layers of material that Astronauts have to overcome to manipulate and maneuver. If you thought Buzz Aldrin was not very enthusiastic about the moonwatch, he would probably be even less impressed with the practicality of this watch for it Astronaut EVA work.
- Contrasting subdials are inherently less easy to read than mono-colored dials [either all white or all black dials. Silvery colored hands also tend to reflect whatever light they catch, which means they can be very bright or nearly unreadable.
- The dial is also over complicated for the Astronaut need of a clear easy to read chronograph and the world time function, so useful to pilots and world travellers would be less useful to someone on a moon mission.
For those top four reasons alone I would think the chances of the count-down being submitted would be problemmatic.
So to say this is a "runner up NASA moonwatch" is a very difficult to prove statement. Sorry Kayvan! You know I consider you a good friend. But it was not a runner up in the 1960's testing. The only watches seriously tested in 1972 for the last Lunar mission, Apollo 17, were Bulova and Omega timepieces, it really couldn't be a moonwatch candidate.
It remains possible for it to have competed for the 1978 testing honors, but it would not have been competing for Moonwatch at that late date. And I think I've laid out why it wouldn't likely have scored high.
I still love mine though! |
