Posts Tagged ‘Apollo 11’

Nick Smith’s exclusive interview with Buzz Aldrin – ‘Out of this world’ – taken from E&T magazine

August 13, 2009

Out of this world

Not only was NASA’s Apollo 11 mission to the moon one of the great voyages of exploration of the 20th Century, but it was also one of the greatest collaborative feats of engineering co-ordination. Nick Smith, spoke with Buzz Aldrin about how the project got off the ground…

On 20th July 1969, when the first men stepped on the moon, mankind had finally achieved its ambition of reaching another celestial body. Mr Armstrong and his co-pilot, Col. Edwin E. Aldrin Jr. of the Air Force, as the New York Times of the day described them, had managed to bring their ship to rest on a level, rock-strewn plain near the southwestern shore of the arid Sea of Tranquility.

It was one of the great human stories of the 20th Century, a measure of how far we had come. But it was also a technical story; a story of how computer coordinated re-entry and rendezvous had made space travel and an all–too-brief walk on the moon possible.

It’s now forty years since Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin made history, and although NASA and other bodies have since made great strides in space exploration, there seems to be a lack of political will to get back out into space. Although we regularly go into Earth’s orbit, many, including Aldrin, believe that the real mission before us is today is to find a way to get men on Mars.

As a fighter pilot serving in Korea, and with a career in the military, Buzz was an all-American hero even before becoming an astronaut. By the time he’d been into space with the Gemini programme and then actually set foot on the moon, he was seen by the world as superman. But despite the universal adulation, Buzz Aldrin was a troubled man.

While some have mid-life crises, Aldrin went into meltdown. Today we tend to think of what happened to him as a combination of ill health and bad luck. But in the 1970s the military wouldn’t tolerate mental illness such as depression, and to admit to being a sufferer meant curtains for any further career development. Moreover, Buzz was what we now call a ‘high-functioning alcoholic’, meaning that while he was perpetually locked in mortal combat with alcohol, he could (and did) at least attempt to keep his career on track with a degree of success.

Unfortunately, the problem for Aldrin was that he wasn’t able to star in a career befitting a moonwalker, and as his new book Magnificent Desolation explains, back then merely being a celebrity didn’t pay the bills. He was dogged by ‘Status versus income disequilibrium syndrome’, which meant that while he was invited to the most elevated of social occasions that America could offer, by day he had been reduced to selling second-hand cars.

Things started to look up when, in his fifties, he married banking heiress Lois Driggs Cannon. This turn of events provided him with the opportunity to clean up his act, and he has now been sober for three decades. But it wasn’t all plain sailing, and in the recession of the 1990s Mrs Aldrin’s financial affairs took a turn for the worst, leaving them (by their standards at least) penniless.

Resolved to work his way out of his newfound poverty, Aldrin became a ‘freelance astronaut’, and ever since he has devoted his life to touring the world advising governments, the aerospace industry and the public on what is needed to get space exploration moving again. Outspoken, opinionated and sometimes a thorn in the side of the establishment, Aldrin is renowned for talking to those who will listen. Especially about technology…

Engineering & Technology magazine:  Apollo 11 has been called one of the greatest collaborative ventures of the 20th century. Do you think that this is true and can you describe, 40 years on, the sheer scale of the technical coordination required to land a craft on the moon and bring it home to Earth?

Buzz Aldrin: It certainly was a cardinal event. Apollo 11 will probably go down in history as one of the major responses of two nations facing each other with threatening technologies – sometimes called mutually assured destruction. It was also our response to the apparent superiority of the Russians in putting objects into space before we could. Both nations gave assurances to each other that it wasn’t going to be just dogs and monkeys, but it was also going to be humans. And in the case of the US, it was going to be very out in the open. I think the Russians responded to that by realising that they needed to be more open with what they were doing. Even though they launched and recovered well inside their boundaries and didn’t necessarily need to expose a lot of the technology, they became more open about what they were doing.

In the US we were faced with the question of who was going to carry this out, and the Navy’s Vanguard mission was chosen. When this didn’t succeed – the Atlas missiles were blowing up on the launch pad – the army then brought in its Explorer satellite programme and matched what the Russians had done with Sputnik. Then it became clear that humans were going into space and it also became clear that we weren’t progressing with Atlas as we had hoped. In 1961 Yuri Gagarin shocked the world by becoming the first man in space and the best response we had – less than a month later – was a sub orbital flight.

But then shortly after that I guess the world was surprised by Kennedy’s announcement about going to the moon.

E&T: Did you have any sense that the technology was ready for this, or did you think ‘this is way too ambitious’?

Buzz: There was still a long way to go with the not-so-successful launches of the Atlas and other rockets. But I think we charted a course at that time. As I reflect back on it from where we are now, we had two features that assisted with the transition from not having a space programme to reaching the moon – flexibility and continuity. When the President said we were going to the moon, the air force had already been studying missions to the moon – including manned flight – so it wasn’t a totally unexplored area. And we had a unity of purpose that was missing in the Soviet Union. The Russians at the time really had two space programmes competing with each other. Sometimes it’s a good idea to have alternate ways of accomplishing something. But when we said we were going to the moon we also had a Mercury programme and an Apollo programme, and we realised we couldn’t stretch one until the other started flying. And so we filled the gap and retained continuity between the two with the very ambitious and successful Gemini programme that accomplished long-duration flight, computer-controlled re-entry, space walking and rendezvous.

E&T: The computers of the time. It’s passed into urban legend that there is more computing power on your mobile phone now than there was on these missions. Is that true? How much computing power was there? What did the computers do, and how much computing power was there back at mission control?

Buzz: (Laughs) I can’t quantitatively give you the numbers, but there was no way you could possibly have had any kind of mechanical calculator and made the corrections needed to be able to get to the moon. Our computers gave us the sophistication of the mathematical smoothing techniques for the equations of motion and the perturbations. We were able to squeeze out of limited capacity some very, very remarkable achievements. We chose to use humans to execute and aid things like re-entry, final closure breaking and docking manoeuvres. We made use of the humans there, rather than try to automate everything and I think we made wise decisions when exploring how to do these things.

E&T: How important is it to have flexibility in developing your approach to solving huge collaborative efforts such as Apollo 11?

Buzz: We had the flexibility when the President said to go to the moon to look at the Nova rocket that was just on paper and wouldn’t be ready until 1970, as well as and two Saturn Vs that were the legacy of Werner Von Braun. But then an engineer came along and said: ‘wait a minute. If we optimise here and there, shed a little weight and send two more specialised spacecraft to the moon we can make do with just one Saturn V. One will land and the other will be available to take people home that doesn’t make the landing manoeuvre an operational asset’. And of course now this is the obvious way of going to the moon, instead of direct there and direct back. These were wise decisions. The Russians looked at other short cuts that we didn’t evaluate very much. We chose flexibility.

E&T: In 2004 George W Bush, then president of the United States, announced a goal for US astronauts to return to the moon by 2020. What are your views on that?

Buzz: That doesn’t impress me too much. Going back to the moon 50 years after we went there in the last century, without having a clear development plan for what we were going to do – other than to say it is a rehearsal for when we go to Mars – doesn’t make much sense. As a project, going to Mars is quite a bit different, much more advanced, and I think we ought to be much more about doing that.

My schedule says if we economise on certain areas and develop what we really need to develop, we can get to Mars by 2031. But we really need to get to a moon of Mars by 2025 first. And that I think we can do, but we can’t do that and go to our moon as well. We should leave that to other nations and encourage them to accept our advice, consultation and assistance and let them experience the development issues associated with going to the moon.

E&T: What are the issues politically or technically that might prevent this? Also, what you achieved 40 years ago… if you hadn’t done it then, would it be possible to do it now?

Buzz: Well sure it’s possible. I’m not really in a position to weigh that personally, but I do think that some of the consolidations in the industry have restricted innovation and new ideas, and the overheads have gone up as well as other costs plus contracting. And then there are changes that mean that we’re not making maximum use of what we’ve previously developed.

E&T: So, do you think these are potential threats to going to Mars by 2031?

Buzz: Yes. If we continue to develop two different launch vehicles, Aries I and Aries V we can go to Mars by a different way. But if we think we can do it by going to the Moon in 2025 it’s going to take a whole lot of time to transition away from the moon to Mars … I think in the US we have lost a tremendous investment in leadership.

E&T: Here in the UK it is often said that we need something or someone really inspirational to attract new talent into the science, engineering and technology (SET) sector. Can you describe what effect Apollo 11 missions and the Lunar Ladings had on the youth of that time?

Buzz: All sorts of people from engineers to airline pilots say it was the Apollo programme and the expansion into new and different technological adventures that inspired them. That can exist again – but I don’t see it as clearly now, because a lot of things can be done by robots as they increase in capability.

E&T: What role will robots play in our efforts to get to Mars, and do you think that they will do away with the need to send humans into space?

Buzz: We can control robots pretty well at the space station, but we need human experience. Once we factor in human experience, robots are much more effective, especially when they are using somebody else’s ability to fix things and do the human housekeeping efforts as they learn how to operate in low-earth orbit. The same thing can apply to the moon: robotic efforts can determine which development industries’ products and activities can be sufficiently productive to justify the big investment in maintaining human habitation. After we’ve experienced that and are in a position to expand our human habitation to fly-by comets, to station-keep with asteroids, to look at asteroids that could possibly threaten us, then we can begin to use human intelligence at a moon of Mars (much safer) to control robots on the surface in real time and assemble items necessary for occupancy on the surface. But to go direct to the surface would be a great mistake. The more prudent way is to make an incremental commitment to a pathway first that can clearly lead toward permanence at Mars and then reinforcing that commitment with resources at a later date. But not on the surface. The great cost in sending people there is not returned if you bring them back after two, three or four trips. You need a certain critical number of people to develop the resources to become self-sustaining. Think about the pilgrims on the Mayflower who left your jolly land to come over and establish a colony here. They didn’t hang around Plymouth Rock waiting for the return trip. But this an adjustment to how we think of human beings participating in space flight. They go somewhere, they do their thing, they turn around and then they come back.

E&T: Are you optimistic that this will happen?

Buzz: I think we have to make a decision one way or another to re-evaluate the destination, and who’s going to do what. Not everybody can do everything over and over again and I think co-operative ventures don’t gain much by simply being a race to the end. Maybe a race to develop something better, that we can do something with, so then you decide whose rocket is better, whose spacecraft is better and you can consolidate your efforts there. We haven’t got to the point where we have the luxury of dual competing efforts.

E&T: Looking back on Apollo 11, what have we learned from that great voyage of exploration 40 years ago?

Buzz: Apollo 11’s legacy is one of significant investment and pioneering effort that achieved a new degree of sophistication in leadership, technology advance and reliability that has become the pattern for how to do these things. But we need to keep doing that and we need to keep draining minds in order to keep doing new innovative things. We can’t just keep recreating the same thing over and over again. But then, we don’t want to terminate good operable machines like the Saturn V prematurely and venture out on something that may not live up to its expectations. There’s a great temptation to claim that something can do a great deal more than it may actually do. And then we have to pay the price of increasing costs.

E&T: What do you think you’ll be feeling personally on the anniversary? Apollo 11 must have dramatically changed your life?

Buzz: For sure Apollo 11 changed my life. But each individual has their lives changed by different events. I had to turn my life around at a very crucial point of transition at the age of 45-50. What I knew about was the future of space, but not being affiliated with a big company that made it kind of difficult to do all those things. So I started projecting, talking, discussing and designing future improvements and learning. It’s in my blood to want to look at better ways of doing things. Several of us engineers were 15 years ahead in looking at reusable booster rockets, ejectable pods and spacecraft that could come back and land. But those things just didn’t seem to meet the fancy of what the air force, the military or NASA wanted, but it seems to be getting a whole lot closer now. I’m just not sure that we have the right destination and I’m not sure that we have the right means of carrying it out. But there are so many political and business contractual activities, that it may seem evident that it needs reevaluation when things don’t seem to be working out quite the way we hoped. There’s this attitude: ‘Don’t change what we’re doing – let’s keep with it – right or wrong – let’s do what we said we’re going to do.’

E&T: How important in a project such as Apollo 11 are the qualities of leadership and the ability to work as a team? How highly do you rate these managerial skills?

Buzz: In forming an organisation we looked around to try to find out where to get the talent we needed. Some of it came from Canada because they had some cancelled programmes. A good bit of it came from military leadership. Of course internationally we made use of some of the German technology and used a pattern of development that they seemed to be able to contribute. That worked out well. There were significant leaders in industry that banded together, and instead of trying to win all the contracts they just took what came out. There was more than enough for everyone involved. Everybody got a reasonable piece of the action, and it all came together in a very well managed, integrated way. When it came to testing and advancing the testing so that we could progress to what we called ‘all up’ testing, a lot of people had to get a lot of things together at the same time.

E&T: You’ve got a new book out at the moment – Magnificent Desolation: the Long Journey Home from the Moon – can you tell us a bit about how that came to be written…

Buzz: One theme is the evolution of change from short-term thinking about the details of future space modifications to an even bigger picture of what is our destiny and how we should go about preserving the investments we have made. Going to the moon was pretty much an American event. We started out the Space station and the Space Shuttle in that direction, made it international, but not quite free and open. We need to change these things regarding the moon and help other nations to catch up with us, while we pioneer what we are able to do in the pursuit of US leadership in the technology of aerospace that allows us to pursue science in outer space.

E&T: So you think that the future of space exploration can be a unifying thing in terms of international political harmony?

Buzz: Certainly. It can also be an increasing irritant unless we begin to make efforts to open up and understand. We need to set a boundary for what will happen in space, say once you get past 100km. Certain things will happen on the surface of the earth to do with conflict, human rights, piracy and we’ll need to deal with those down here. But in space for the betterment of many, many people, we’d like not to see communications technology encroached upon.

E&T: Thank you

Buzz Aldrin: A great pleasure.

A Trio Triumphant: Where are they now?

On July 20, it will be 40 years since Apollo 11 astronauts—Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, and Michael Collins—reached the Moon, with Armstrong and Aldrin walking on its desolate regolith.

In the years since, Lunar Module pilot Buzz Aldrin, 79, has remained a staunch advocate for space exploration, particularly in the realm of private space ventures, which includes his own rocket design company, Starcraft Boosters. More recently, he launched the ShareSpace Foundation, a nonprofit organization devoted to advancing education and affordable access to space, one of several new entities now operated under the aegis of Buzz Aldrin Enterprises.

Collins, 78, who has remained rather circumspect when it comes to his critical role as pilot of the command module Columbia, has chosen a quieter life, retiring to the Florida Everglades after directorship of the National Air and Space Museum and involvement in several private space companies. There, he has authored several critically acclaimed space-related books and indulged in his love of watercolors.

Mission commander Armstrong, 78, who saw no need to return to space after Apollo 11, chose instead to pursue his passion for teaching at the University of Cincinnati, near his Ohio home. In addition to serving on the corporate boards of several companies, including booster-rocket manufacturer Thiokol, Armstrong has remained committed to aerospace education. He recently donated his space-related papers to his alma mater, Purdue University, an institution with a long history of producing candidates for the American space program.

Whether staying in the limelight, fostering an interest in aeronautical engineering for the next generation, or enjoying more leisurely pursuits, all three have campaigned for a “return to the glory days of the space program,” particularly when it comes to the exploration of Mars. Aldrin has gone so far as to devise a spacecraft system known as the Aldrin Mars Cycler, which, he contends, could remain in perpetual orbit between Earth and Mars. For Collins, it is Mars and only Mars that should be our current space focus. In terms of time and money, he says, further exploration of the Moon could be “a bottomless pit.” When asked if he might be up for a journey to Mars, Armstrong has said simply, “I am available.”

Time travellers

Omega is celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Lunar Landing with a replica of its Speedmaster ‘Moon Watch’, as worn by Buzz Aldrin

When it comes to pushing back the frontiers of human achievement, landmark years don’t come much bigger than 1969. British explorer Wally Herbert and his team of Arctic scientists were conquering the North Pole on foot, while Robin Knox-Johnston was becoming the first person to sail single-handedly, non-stop around the world. But the off-world activities of NASA’s Apollo 11 space mission outshone these terrestrial endeavours, as a trio of American astronauts fulfilled their late president John F Kennedy’s dream of ‘landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.’

On July 20th 1969 the Lunar Module Eagle landed lightly on the moon’s powdery surface after a protracted descent. Following technical checks and preliminary contact with Mission Control the ceremony began. As the Eagle’s hatch opened and Neil Armstrong stepped out, 600 million watched the events unfold on their TV sets. A static glitch in the audio transmission muffled a vital syllable of the most famous line delivered in space, ensuring it will be debated and misquoted for evermore. ‘That’s one small step for a man’ is what Neil Armstrong actually said before delivering the historic payoff: ‘one giant leap for mankind.’

What is beyond doubt is that the time was 02:56 GMT exactly. Armstrong led the way, and Buzz Aldrin followed wearing his Omega Speedmaster Professional wristwatch. Armstrong had taken the precaution of leaving his chronograph aboard the Lunar Module as a backup to the electronic timing system, which had not been functioning correctly. Armstrong was right in thinking that his timepiece was one that could be relied upon.

In NASA tests the Speedmaster had withstood temperature fluctuations of over 100°C, shocks of 40g, acceleration of 16g – twice that of a fighter pilot. After two years strenuously testing models from different manufacturers NASA was left with an easy decision – the Speedmaster was the only contestant still in one piece. This famous chronograph was later to get Apollo 13 out of a jam when astronaut Jim Lovell used his to time the firing of the re-entry rockets after a power failure had knocked out the onboard electronics. It’s easy to see why Armstrong put so much faith in his.

To commemorate the Lunar Landing, watchmaker Omega has announced the release of the Speedmaster Professional Apollo 11 ‘40th Anniversary’ Limited Edition, or ‘moonwatch’. Powered by the same movement Omega used four decades ago and fitted with the same Hesalite crystal – a man-made shatterproof material ideal for low-gravity environments – this replica watch is almost exactly what Buzz and his friends were sporting on their wrists back in the late Sixties.

And yet a few neat additions distinguish it from the original, such as the inclusion of the legend ‘02:56 GMT’ in red on the dial beneath the maker’s mark, while the stainless steel body design has been updated to make it even more durable. The Apollo 11 Eagle ‘mission patch’ is stamped on the back along with the words ‘The first watch worn on the moon’. Other information on the back includes the timepiece’s production limitation. But don’t worry: with the edition limited to 7,969 there should be plenty to go around.

Delivered in a black presentation box with a certificate of authenticity, the Moon Watch is accompanied by a 42mm silver medal bearing the mission patch again. Michael Collins, the third member of the crew – who never made it to the moon’s surface – designed this famous logo of a bald eagle with an olive branch in its beak, symbolising NASA’s ‘we come in peace’ mission statement. While Aldrin and Armstrong conducted scientific experiments, Collins was at the controls of the orbiting Command Module Columbia, counting the minutes until he was reunited with his colleagues, mission accomplished.

Men Walk on Moon – how the New York Times saw it

The following is an extract from the front page of the New York Times, Monday, July 21, 1969…

Houston, Monday, July 21 – Men have landed and walked on the moon. Two Americans, astronauts of Apollo 11, steered their fragile four-legged lunar module safely and smoothly to the historic landing yesterday at 4:17:40 P.M., Eastern daylight time. Neil A. Armstrong, the 38-year-old civilian commander, radioed to earth and the mission control room here: “Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.”

The first men to reach the moon – Mr Armstrong and his co-pilot, Col. Edwin E. Aldrin Jr. of the Air Force – brought their ship to rest on a level, rock-strewn plain near the southwestern shore of the arid Sea of Tranquility. About six and a half hours later, Mr. Armstrong opened the landing craft’s hatch, stepped down the ladder and declared as he planted the first human footprint on the lunar crust: ‘That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.’

His first step on the moon came at 10:56:20 P.M. as a television camera outside the craft transmitted his every move to an awed and excited audience of hundreds of millions of people on earth…

The ultimate gastronaut

When NASA initiated their space programme they soon started cooking up ideas for foods that astronauts could bring on spaceflights. The food needed to last without being refrigerated and not weigh too much. One of the more inventive ideas was to freeze-dry food, which removes almost all the food’s water content. The super-dried food then rehydrates in the astronaut’s mouth. The result was food that could keep for years which weighed almost nothing. Later astronauts were able to use hot water to boost the culinary merit of their space chow. And today’s space station even has a freezer for those hydrated chocolate chip goodies. But for the real freeze-dried McCoy, log on to Astronaut Foods for beef flavoured space dinners and astro-pack ice cream. Visit www.astronautfoods.com

With additional reporting by Angela M H Schuster, Editor of the Explorers Journal, and with thanks to the archivist of the Explorers Club, Dorothea Sartain, who made parts of this article possible.

Nick Smith reviews Buzz Aldrin’s new book ‘Magnificent Desolation’ in E&T magazine

July 9, 2009

Magnificent Desolation

By Buzz Aldrin, with Ken Abraham

Fighter pilots aren’t any good at poetry and are trained to keep their emotions in check. So says Buzz Aldrin in the latest installment of his autobiography ‘Magnificent Desolation’ that takes its name from a memorable phrase he uttered while walking on the moon in July 1969. ‘It was a spontaneous utterance, an oxymoron that would take on ever-deeper dimensions of meaning in describing this strange new environmet’ he writes early on in the book.

In fact ‘Magnificent Desolation’ starts on the upper platformon Kennedy Space Center’s Launch Pad 39-A, just as Aldrin is about to enter the Apollo Command Module prior to take-off. What happens over the next week or so is well-known, but such a terrific yarn that Buzz tells it gain. But it is the ‘Long Journey Home from the Moon’ that occupies the remainder of the book, and as his subtitle seems to imply, in many ways it was a much more dangerous journey.

The fabric of Aldrin’s life since Apollo 11 is woven with many threads. There is his devotion to the public understanding of space, his long-running one-man crusade to get NASA moving in a positive direction; And yet there are a pair loose threads that continually threatens to unravel the whole thing: depression and alcoholism. Faced with the awkward question of ‘what’s next?’, after the Lunar Landing, Aldrin hit the bottle hard and it retaliated. Failed marriages, long dark nights of the soul, physical immobility, the loss of dignity, all spiraling downwards hand-in-hand with their attendant depression. It was a horrible existence and Aldrin was a sick man. In some ways it’s harder to be a down-and-out when you’re an all-American hero and a moon-walker too. As Aldrin’s father, a distinguished aviator in his own right, continually urged his high-achieving son: pull yourself together.

Easier said than done, and after a spell of trying to sell cadillacs to a public that only wanted his autograph he saw ‘the long journey home from the moon’ as being one of public disclosure. He told the world he was ill, attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings on a daily basis, dried out, fell off the wagon and dried out again with a cyclical monotony that seemed to bore even himself. And when this happened he’d stay in bed and watch daytime TV.

Every superman needs his Lois, and when he married Lois Driggs Cannon, on Valentine’s Day in 1988 it seemed the only way was up. More than two decades later they are still together touring the world, lecturing on the future of space, dining with the crowned heads of Europe facing their second Recession together. In the early 1990s the private bank Mrs Aldrin was heiress to collapsed leaving the couple virtually penniless and having to build up from the floor. This is when Buzz became the extraordinary freelance astronaut he is today.

Nothing if not entrepreneurial by nature Aldrin is a pioneer even today. He has exploits his celebrity to lobby governments and to inspire school children alike. He has been one of the biggest supporters of space tourism and has launched the Sharespace foundation to try to get ordinary people up there. He’s had a best selling toy named after him and he’s been on the Simpsons. He famously kept a straight face while interviewed by Ali G and punched a conspiracy theorist journalist’s lights out when told his whole life was ‘a lie’. He likes to wear his dress whites and be seen with beautiful women, and he can compute orbital mechanics in his head. Buzz Aldrin’s story is amazing, and his new book Magnificent Desolation is inspirational.

Nick Smith’s interview with Stephen Urquhart, President of Omega, as featured in E&T magazine (full text)

May 23, 2009

Timing for success

Omega is the world’s largest watch manufacturer and has developed a portfolio of marketing alliances with aspirational brands such as James Bond, the Olympics and even NASA’s Lunar Landings. Nick Smith talks to Omega’s president, Stephen Urquhart…

Stephen Urquhart studied Industrial Management at the University of Neuchâtel and has been a member of Omega’s Management Board since 2000. With dual nationality (British and Swiss) Urquhart is currently President of Omega, part of the Swatch Group, the world’s largest manufacturer of finished watch products. Urquhart began his career at Omega in 1968 and although he has worked for other companies since he returned to the Swiss manufacturer in 1997.

Omega has regularly been the official timekeeper for the Olympics since the 1932 summer games. The Swiss manufacturer has been the official timekeeper for every Olympiad this century including the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. They will be operating in the same capacity at the 2010 winter games in Vancouver, Canada (see Engineering & Technology ‘Olympic Time’, 23rd April 2009) and will be on hand with several new technical developments for London 2012. In the 2008 Olympics, Omega bought out an Olympic limited edition edition watch with its logo on the second hand. Olympic swimmer and multiple gold medalist Michael Phelps is an Omega Ambassador and wears the Seamaster Planet Ocean.

Today, the Swatch Group continues to invest heavily in research and development, driving the steady expansion of its leading position in materials and process technologies and in product design and manufacturing. In particular, the Swatch Group engages in significant development activities in microelectronics and micromechanics. Sports timing and measurement technologies, although not a core business, play a key role in Omega’s brand and corporate visibility.

Nick Smith: Describe the relationship that Omega has with the Olympic games…

Stephen Urquhart: Everybody knows we started of in 1932 the first ever watch brand to be commissioned by the IOC. We sent three watchmakers to Los Angeles with a little briefcase of stopwatches and they timed a few of the events. And then we went to Berlin and London. We missed a few for different reasons – so there’s a very historical basis. Second, I think we would be crazy not to pursue this association with the Olympic world because it is a unique world, a unique entity. Secondly sports is very much part of our brand’s equity. We’ve been involved in diving, sailing and golf over the years, but to have the Olympic games as your main hook for your message is a chance to go in for the long run – we’ve done 23 games and Vancouver will be our 24th. It’s part of the brand’s DNA. We don’t sit down and ask ourselves ‘do we as part of our strategy sponsor or become a partner for the Olympic games’. It’s part of our future and it goes without saying. So we’ll be at the London Olympics, then Sochi (Russia Winter Olympics 2014) – that’s definite – and also the 2016 games. We don’t know where they will be yet, but Omega will be there.

NS: What are the tangible commercial benefits of this relationship?

SU: For Omega to be where it is today, somewhere along the line the Olympics must have played an important role. There’s an old saying in marketing, which is ‘half of what you spend is a waste of money, but you don’t know which half.’ And the thing about the link to the games is that it has helped us to build up the brand in terms of seriousness, reliability and quality. Obviously to be a part of the games in Beijing for us as a brand was an incredible opportunity to make the brand known in China. For the Chinese, it was such an important event for them. We saw the result there: we saw the build-up, during and after. If the brand is strong today in China then the Olympics has doubled our strength there.

NS: Can you put a graph on the wall and say these are the results?

SU: I don’t want to put a figure on it. It’s brand image and that is hard to measure. At every Olympics we launch a limited edition watch to coincide with the games and there will be a new one later this year for Vancouver. Okay, so we know that we can sell these watches because of the Olympic connection. But we’re not investing all this money and effort just to sell a few more watches. A watch is nice to have and it is part of our whole message, but it is not really our main message. That is to convey that Omega is heavily involved in the most universal sporting event in the world. But I can’t put a graph on the wall.

NS: Who is the message for? Is there a profile of the Omega client, how do you reach them and what is the method of delivery?

SU: Let’s face it, the purchase of a watch these days is not a rational decision. Today, who needs to buy a watch to tell the time? And if you do, who needs to spend thousands of pounds on one? But below the surface, to own a brand that has the notions of longevity and quality makes a difference, I think, to people’s decisions when hey come to buy one. Obviously people will buy a watch for many different reasons – it could be spontaneous, it could be for prestige reasons, or maybe even to show off – but they need to have a brand that has reliability. When our consumers spend three, four, five thousand pounds on a watch this image does play a role. If you ask the consumer, they’ll tell you that it doesn’t, but it does and our surveys say it does. When the market gets difficult, such as the economic environment we find ourselves in now, issues such as reliability and quality play an even bigger role.

NS: What part do the brand ambassadors play in establishing this reassurance?

SU: They play a role. I think maybe it’s above the line, with the precision, accuracy and reliability below the line. When you see James Bond wearing Omega, that’s when you can put a graph on the wall. We can show that during the period of promotion for Quantum of Solace the sales of the James Bond watch went like that [Urquhart points to the ceiling]. Cindy Crawford has been with the brand now for more than a decade associated with one particular product that is heavily promoted in Asia, and that line is now 60-70% of our business out there. I won’t say it’s entirely due to Cindy Crawford, but the ambassadors are there to help. They are people that the consumers can relate to, and they can relate to them much more tan to time keeping. In Beijing we had Michael Phelps along as an ambassador, and that helps. I am sure of it.

NS: Famously, Buzz Aldrin was wearing an Omega watch when he walked on the moon in 1969. The Speedmaster Professional is the first and only watch to make it to the lunar surface. What sort of effect does branding like that have on your business?

SU: Although there hasn’t been a mission to the moon for twenty or so years, to this day the Apollo 11 mission still has incredible appeal. We know that there are a lot of people out there who still follow this, so every year we celebrate the moon landing and to celebrate the 40th anniversary this year we’ve made a very special version of the moon watch. It’s sort of semi-limited and we’ve made a lot of them because there is a big following for the Speedmaster and a lot of people will want to own it. At the Basel Watch Fair in March there was a big event where we actually had Mr Aldrin with us. I am amazed to see how this story still has mass appeal to people of all ages, even people who weren’t even born when the moon landings happened.

NS: The lunar landings were technology at its most flamboyant…?

SU: I agree. And it’s technology that doesn’t really exist any more. If you go to NASA’s Johnson Space Centre in Texas and have a look at the stuff they’ve got there you can’t believe that they got to the moon and back using just this technology – it’s so rudimentary. I’ll always remember meeting the astronaut General Stafford, who didn’t actually walk on the moon, but was commander of Apollo 10, and did the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project where he made the historic meeting with a Soviet Cosmonaut. He picked me up at the airport in Dallas in a small Japanese car and said: ‘Stephen, do you know that there’s more computing power in this car than there was in the whole of the whole of the Apollo space programme.