# Watches in space: Why mechanical rather than quartz?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/watches-in-space-why-mechanical-rather-than-quartz/815710
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [June 8, 2018, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/watches-in-space-why-mechanical-rather-than-quartz/815710 "2018-06-08T19:31:59Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [June 10, 2018, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/watches-in-space-why-mechanical-rather-than-quartz/815710/41 "2018-06-10T18:21:04Z")
One of the modern-day Sherlock Holmes shows has him analyzing Watson, on their first meeting, based on his smartphone. It’s almost a word-for-word copy of the passage in the original book, where it was based on a pocketwatch.
---
### Author:  [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)
#### Post date: [June 11, 2018, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/watches-in-space-why-mechanical-rather-than-quartz/815710/42 "2018-06-11T16:43:32Z")
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> One of the modern-day Sherlock Holmes shows has him analyzing Watson, on their first meeting, based on his smartphone. It’s almost a word-for-word copy of the passage in the original book, where it was based on a pocketwatch.
That would be the first episode of _Sherlock_. With the other added twist that the phone wasn’t given to John by a rich brother as Sherlock deduced, but his sister.
---
### Author:  [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)
#### Post date: [June 12, 2018, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/watches-in-space-why-mechanical-rather-than-quartz/815710/43 "2018-06-12T00:29:36Z")
> [@Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](#):
>
> From that article:
>
> It did make me laugh to read that one of the companies that submitted a watch for testing sent in a pocket watch. Now I have an image in my head of a spacesuit with a watch pocket.
I’m picturing one with a Top Hat and tail. No monocle, however.
---
### Author:  [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)
#### Post date: [June 12, 2018, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/watches-in-space-why-mechanical-rather-than-quartz/815710/44 "2018-06-12T00:59:30Z")
> [@Gatopescado](#):
>
> I’m picturing one with a Top Hat and tail. No monocle, however.
Wouldn’t the faceplate on the helmet be sort of a huge monocle?
---
### Author:  [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)
#### Post date: [June 12, 2018, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/watches-in-space-why-mechanical-rather-than-quartz/815710/45 "2018-06-12T01:01:00Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> From a practical standpoint, watches went the way of the pocket watch some 10 years ago. There may be people who think that the both of them are equally quaint products.
There are all kinds of people who wear smart watches connected to their phones now.
---
### Author:  [@burpo\_the\_wonder\_mutt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/burpo_the_wonder_mutt)
#### Post date: [June 12, 2018, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/watches-in-space-why-mechanical-rather-than-quartz/815710/46 "2018-06-12T01:26:19Z")
> [@cochrane](#):
>
> Wouldn’t the faceplate on the helmet be sort of a huge monocle?
Where should you attach the string? Plus, if it fell into the astronaut’s drink, that could get ugly.
---
### Author:  [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)
#### Post date: [June 12, 2018, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/watches-in-space-why-mechanical-rather-than-quartz/815710/47 "2018-06-12T04:09:22Z")
So, there are commercially available time pieces that have been tested and proven capable of doing the job. I know! Let’s spend a steaming pantload of money and man hours buying and testing all sorts of new watches with new technologies that may or may not work.
Oh, a self winding watch wouldn’t work in a weightless environment. There’s that weight inside that rocks on a pivot to wind the spring. It needs gravity to pull it down. In orbit there’s no gravity. Or down, in any winding the watch sort of manner.
---
### Author:  [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)
#### Post date: [June 12, 2018, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/watches-in-space-why-mechanical-rather-than-quartz/815710/48 "2018-06-12T05:29:38Z")
Again, I have no inside information, but in 1965 there were no quartz wristwatches available, which explains why they didn’t use any; since then, if you believe [Omega’s spam](http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-121514a-omega-x33-skywalker-speedmaster.html), they have indeed spent a steaming pantload of money testing and certifying new models incorporating new technologies:
> [@](#):
>
> The first models of the X-33 were flight qualified by NASA for use in space. The Skywalker is the first Speedmaster to be tested and qualified by the European Space Agency.
>
> ESA engineers put the Skywalker through rigorous testing at the European Space Research and Technology Center (ESTEC) in Noordwijk, The Netherlands, where the space agency’s satellites are examined before launch.
>
> The new Skywalker X-33 model has been tested and qualified by the European Space Agency and was developed under a patent license for an invention by Jean-François Clervoy.
>
> The Omega timepiece displayed ruggedness by surviving shaker tests simulating the intense vibrations of a launch, and was spun in a centrifuge to reach 7 G’s, seven times the force of gravity on Earth, the same an astronaut might endure when returning to the planet.
>
> ESA also analyzed the watch’s performance after sitting in a vacuum chamber at temperatures ranging from minus 49 to 167 degrees Fahrenheit (-45 to 75 degrees Celsius), far greater a range than an astronaut would have to endure.
>
> Finally, the Skywalker was exposed to radiation under the supervision of France’s ONERA/DESP space environment department.
>
> Having passed ESA’s tests, the Speedmaster Skywalker X-33 will be included in the standard equipment issued to European astronauts by the space agency.
---
### Author:  [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)
#### Post date: [June 12, 2018, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/watches-in-space-why-mechanical-rather-than-quartz/815710/49 "2018-06-12T14:53:34Z")
> [@Ranger\_Jeff](#):
>
> Oh, a self winding watch wouldn’t work in a weightless environment. There’s that weight inside that rocks on a pivot to wind the spring. It needs gravity to pull it down. In orbit there’s no gravity. Or down, in any winding the watch sort of manner.
I think a self-winding watch would work OK, though not as efficiently. Just tilting the watch in different directions won’t wind it, but moving it about (i.e. linear acceleration) should still wind it.
---
### Author:  [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)
#### Post date: [June 12, 2018, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/watches-in-space-why-mechanical-rather-than-quartz/815710/50 "2018-06-12T16:58:07Z")
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> They’re not used now because they don’t need to be, because they already have something that is known to work well.
Yeah, this is almost certainly the reason. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
You’ve got limited engineering resources. Are you going to spend them on important new engineering problems or on testing a replacement for a component that works fine and is generally available.
---
### Author:  [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)
#### Post date: [June 12, 2018, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/watches-in-space-why-mechanical-rather-than-quartz/815710/51 "2018-06-12T17:39:41Z")
Simple answer is it became part of astronaut culture.
All the original astronauts were either Naval Aviators or Air Force test pilots who came up in the military and scientific milieu of 1950s combat aviation. In that scene, high quality aviation watches like Omega chronographs were a status symbol. Young military officers, even very talented ones like aviators, didn’t typically have much money, but most of them found it essential to scrape together the cash for two important luxuries: a fine watch and a fast sports car.
The advanced high-end watches they used simply carried over into the culture of space exploration. Every “shit-hot” pilot has to be a jockey, an adventurer, a scientist, and an engineer all rolled into one - and the wristwatch is just part of that package.
Ever since, the watch companies themselves have been using that image as part of their marketing.
---
### Author:  [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)
#### Post date: [June 12, 2018, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/watches-in-space-why-mechanical-rather-than-quartz/815710/52 "2018-06-12T17:43:42Z")
> [@Jacquernagy](#):
>
> Simple answer is it became part of astronaut culture.
>
> All the original astronauts were either Naval Aviators or Air Force test pilots who came up in the military and scientific milieu of 1950s combat aviation. In that scene, high quality aviation watches like Omega chronographs were a status symbol. Young military officers, even very talented ones like aviators, didn’t typically have much money, but most of them found it essential to scrape together the cash for two important luxuries: a fine watch and a fast sports car.
>
> The advanced high-end watches they used simply carried over into the culture of space exploration. Every “shit-hot” pilot has to be a jockey, an adventurer, a scientist, and an engineer all rolled into one - and the wristwatch is just part of that package.
>
> Ever since, the watch companies themselves have been using that image as part of their marketing.
No.
NASA qualifies the equipment used. If a better solution was available, it would have been used, even if the astronauts thought it wasn’t stylish.
---
### Author:  [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)
#### Post date: [June 12, 2018, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/watches-in-space-why-mechanical-rather-than-quartz/815710/53 "2018-06-12T19:56:42Z")
Yes, but the Astronauts probably were the ones who suggested using the Speedmaster. (Bulova also invented a watch for the same purpose, which many people have forgotten about.) They were familiar with such watches already.
---
### Author:  [@MarvinKitFox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarvinKitFox)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2018, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/watches-in-space-why-mechanical-rather-than-quartz/815710/54 "2018-06-13T07:31:26Z")
> [@Schnitte](#):
>
> … I would imagine that a quartz watch with a digital display, having no moving parts, would be superior to a watch with a mechanical movement in terms of reliability, robustness, and accuracy in timekeeping
You can imagine what you wish, but the facts don’t fit reality.
The mechanical watch is much more robust.
Weaknesses of a digital display quartz watch, that a mechanical watch are not subject to:
1. Needs a battery. Battery can fail. Battery does not withstand vacuum. Battery _really_ does not like freezing cold. Nearest battery shop is a 16km/s and minimum 800km trip away.
2. The display is _very_ vacuum-intolerant. LCD just does not work in a vacuum. So you need a 100% hermetically sealed watch. Which, again, the battery does not like.
3. The display is not UV-resistant. (ok, this is an easy fix, with a suitable filter over the face of the watch)
4. Visibility of lcd screen in the ultra-high-contrast environment of space is limited, at best. You would need a continuous strong backlight, or a 1970’s style glowing green display. Which is even more tacky than a mickey mouse watch.
5. The certification to get a low-voltage electronic device rated to withstand the elevated radiation environment is an immense undertaking. No watches are. A single-event radiation upset could _alter_ the displayed time, _without_ apparently stopping the watch, so you could never know if the time displayed on it was accurate, without calibrating it against another. Rather defeating the purpose of having a wristwatch!
---
### Author:  [@joema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joema)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2018, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/watches-in-space-why-mechanical-rather-than-quartz/815710/55 "2018-06-13T11:43:28Z")
> [@Schnitte](#):
>
> …Omega remains to this day the only watch admitted by NASA for EVA use. This is a mechanical watch…Why would you want to use this rather than any of the easily available alternatives nowadays? I would imagine that a quartz watch with a digital display, having no moving parts, would be superior…
As already mentioned, GoPro cameras (which use similar electronics to quartz watches) are used on EVAs. In fact the GoPro has a quartz clock built in.
This clip shows one in a soft-sided pouch with an arm strap. It’s funny because he forgot to insert the SD card before starting the EVA, but various GoPro footage is available from other EVAs.
[![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XAibqA-BTc)
The reasoning about consumer electronics won't work in an EVA space environment doesn't seem valid, since it's obviously being used in these cases.
Re quartz watches “easily available…today”, I don’t see any photos of ANY wrist watch – quartz or mechanical – used on any EVA within the past 20 years. So the idea of mechanical vs quartz watches for EVA use may not be relevant anymore.
During the early manned spaceflight era, communications were not as reliable as today, especially for earth orbital missions. There were large “no comms” coverage gaps for orbital missions – even when nothing went wrong. Also there were contingency cases involving loss of earth communications which meant astronauts had to potentially time certain functions themselves. E.g, a space walk or lunar liftoff.
Today the TDSS satellite network provides highly reliable 24x7 data and voice communications to orbital missions, so the likelihood of a total comm failure is quite low: [Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracking_and_Data_Relay_Satellite_System)
Mission Control is constantly telling spacewalking astronauts their timeline – so frequently it frustrates many of them. They likely just don’t need a watch on EVAs, which may explain why no recent photos shows a spacewalking astronaut wearing one.
So it appears the basic question about why no quartz watches on early EVAs is self-answering: in general there were no quartz chronographs available then. I’m not an expert on watches, but maybe the 1982 Seiko Sports 100 7A28 was the first analog quartz chronograph: [https://www.birthyearwatches.com/product/1982-seiko-sports-100-chronograph-7a28-7049/](https://www.birthyearwatches.com/product/1982-seiko-sports-100-chronograph-7a28-7049/)
The first TDRSS satellite was launched in 1983, although it was a few years before there was global communications coverage. But in general it appears that about the time quartz chronographs became available, communications advances made the need for an EVA wristwatch irrelevant.
---
### Author:  [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2018, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/watches-in-space-why-mechanical-rather-than-quartz/815710/56 "2018-06-13T12:35:45Z")
The GoPro is a good point, but I’d be surprised if it was 100% COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) just because it contains a lithium-ion battery. I don’t think commercial li-ion cells are sealed against vacuum?
Thinking more about LCD panels, it’s very possible that most (if not all) commercial LCD modules are already sealed. The actual liquid crystal is tapped between two polarizing filters, so it’s just a matter of sealing the edges, which is probably standard prctice.
---
### Author:  [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2018, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/watches-in-space-why-mechanical-rather-than-quartz/815710/57 "2018-06-13T12:47:02Z")
> [@MarvinKitFox](#):
>
> 1. Needs a battery. Battery can fail. Battery does not withstand vacuum. Battery _really_ does not like freezing cold.
It does need to be sealed against vacuum, but many types of batteries are already sealed in metal cans.
As for “freezing cold,” astronauts’ equipment don’t get very cold. There is a lot of infrared radiation from the surroundings (Earth, space station, astronauts spacesuit, etc). And of course, batteries generate heat themselves.
> [@](#):
>
> 1. The display is _very_ vacuum-intolerant. LCD just does not work in a vacuum. So you need a 100% hermetically sealed watch. Which, again, the battery does not like.
A hermetically sealed watch would work fine for the battery, as long as there is a conductive heat path to prevent the battery from overheating. But as I said in the post above, the whole system doesn’t need to be hermetically sealed. Just the LCD panel itself.
> [@](#):
>
> 1. The display is not UV-resistant. (ok, this is an easy fix, with a suitable filter over the face of the watch)
> 2. Visibility of lcd screen in the ultra-high-contrast environment of space is limited, at best. You would need a continuous strong backlight, or a 1970’s style glowing green display. Which is even more tacky than a mickey mouse watch.
> 3. The certification to get a low-voltage electronic device rated to withstand the elevated radiation environment is an immense undertaking. No watches are. A single-event radiation upset could _alter_ the displayed time, _without_ apparently stopping the watch, so you could never know if the time displayed on it was accurate, without calibrating it against another. Rather defeating the purpose of having a wristwatch!
4 may be valid. For 5, certification is difficult only if the device is mission-critical or safety-critical. So if the watch was the astronauts main tool for keeping track of how much oxygen has been used, then you’d be right. If it was just an additional “nice to have,” I don’t think the same certification requirements need to be met.
By the way, a mechanical watch is MORE likely to show the wrong time if it fails. It’s highly unlikely that a SEU would cause a digital watch to show a valid but incorrect time.
---
### Author:  [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2018, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/watches-in-space-why-mechanical-rather-than-quartz/815710/58 "2018-06-13T13:14:09Z")
> [@Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](#):
>
> …It did make me laugh to read that one of the companies that submitted a watch for testing sent in a pocket watch. Now I have an image in my head of a spacesuit with a watch pocket.
And a gold chain from which to hang your Phi Beta Kappa key.
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2018, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/watches-in-space-why-mechanical-rather-than-quartz/815710/59 "2018-06-13T13:26:12Z")
Even for Earthly use, GoPro cameras are already engineered to be extremely rugged and robust, because they’re often used in extreme situations. And they’re also not mission-critical: When the astronaut forgot to put in an SD card, the worst that happened was that some Earthly fans didn’t get as much YouTube footage as they’d hoped.
---
### Author:  [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2018, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/watches-in-space-why-mechanical-rather-than-quartz/815710/60 "2018-06-13T18:55:28Z")
Thanks everyone for the replies. It seems the consensus opinion is “When manned spaceflights started, there were only mechanical watches available, and since then NASA has not see a sufficiently strong reason to go to lengths to change that.”
> [@MarvinKitFox](#):
>
> You can imagine what you wish, but the facts don’t fit reality.
I’m not quite sure what I’ve done to deserve such a needlessly flippant answer. Was it an inappropriate way to phrase the question or what?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/watches-in-space-why-mechanical-rather-than-quartz/815710.md?page=2)