• stevecrox@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      SpaceX are on track to launch 130 times this year. The industry competitors launch 6-12 times per year.

      I suspect the higher incident rate is related, since you will need to manufacture, roll out, etc… much more often.

      The article also talks about most the incidents being in booster recovery. Only 2 Space competitors do that,

      Blue Origins sub orbital booster always returned to launch site and at best managed monthly launch. This rocket hasn’t launched in more than a year.

      Rocket Lab perform ocean recovery but only launched 11 times last year and only recovered the booster twice.

      So its hard to really compare

      • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        6 months ago

        Still, the specific injuries sound gruesome, like amputations and crushing. And sure, to a degree this just happens if you do something often enough, but we have safety standards for a reason, it’s wild to me that this isn’t something where safety is paramount.

        After all, think about all the product that could get damaged! 😑

    • Donebrach@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Elongated Muskrat runs his companies like the cyberpunk villain he aspires to be. Wouldn’t be surprised if all the employees at his companies signed over their physical bodies and implants as part of an NDA because he lives in a fantasy land where it’s 2019 rain-drenched fire-spewing-tower L.A.

  • fidodo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    6 months ago

    Musk is trying to make the US labor board unconstitutional. The reason why is outrageously transparent based on this article. Fuck that monster.

  • guacupado@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    A previous Reuters investigation found that the approximately 600 reported injuries in 2022 included crushed limbs, cuts, burns, eye injuries, electrocutions, amputations, and serious head injuries, according to the news outlet, which noted that data from prior years are either incomplete or non-existent.

    Oh my lanta.

    • Beetschnapps@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      TRW got us to from Pioneer to the fucking moon without shitting on unions or massively injuring their workers.

      Elon takes his parents blood money and buys Tom Mueller… yet people act like it’s the second coming of Jesus while the same engineers now suffer for his ego.

      All so a single trust fund baby can claim land in LEO.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Injuries such as guy got stuck in the rocket during countdown, guy minding his own business when rocket part fell on him and it was still burning. Probably things like that… parking at the wrong place during horizontal engine tests, etc.

  • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    110
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    SpaceX also launches more rockets than any other launch provider. What is the injury rate per mass-to-orbit? The Reuters report smells suspiciously like a hit piece.

    • LanternEverywhere@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      72
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      RATE. Injury rate per person.

      The only thing that matters is how many injuries happen per person. That’s the whole point. Every company could increase output by sacrificing worker’s health, but we as society strongly condemn that because that’s truly fucked up.

      • pezhore@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        We should frame things in terms of injuries per worker per stock price. If our shareholders are happy who cares if Tommy’s dad only has one leg now?

        /s

      • Wrench@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        “Rate” doesn’t necessarily mean per capita. It could easily mean an averaged total over time.

        However, the linked Reuters source does clarify that the referenced “rate” is injury per 100 employees. So your intuition was correct.

        Still, it’s shitty journalism to leave that ambiguity. The Reuters article that it cites is far better.

        • fidodo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          This is from the article, is it not clear enough?

          In 2023, the SpaceX facility in Brownsville, Texas, for example, reported an injury rate of 5.9 per 100 workers, a notable increase from 4.8 in 2022. Comparatively, the industry average remains significantly lower at 0.8 injuries per 100 workers, according to figures provided by Reuters.

          • Wrench@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Hmm, I didn’t see that when I first was looking for that exact information. Either I’m blind, or they made an edit

            • fidodo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              Very possible they made an edit. I’ve seen some terribly written headlines posted that were copy pasted from the article but with a better one after you visit it. Sometimes I wonder if it’s on purpose. Get the benefits of a shitty click bait headline on social media without the shame of having it on your site when users get there. For article content it could be that they rush the article out to get the SEO boost of being first, then actually finish the article after.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        You gotta keep in mind that spacex is more mass manufacturing things compared to legacy space.

        They’re aiming for 144 launches this year, that’s 144 2nd stages. A second stage is being manufactured every 2.5 days.

        Hundreds, if not thousands of satellites.

        A better comparison would be to other manufacturers of this scale and complexity. Not someone who launches 2 rockets this years, maybe.

        • LanternEverywhere@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          6 months ago

          No absofuckinglutely not. That’s psychotic and you should feel like garbage for even thinking that. Being ok with more people being hurt and killed just so a company can churn out more product is vile.

          • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            I never said I’m okay with people being injured, but it is FACT that injury rates change based off type of work.

            No one in the space industry is mass manufacturing at the scale that SpaceX is so they are not a valid comparison.

            • LanternEverywhere@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              6 months ago

              If space projects can’t be done faster without pushing kids into the orphan crushing machine, then it shouldn’t be done faster.

              • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                10
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                Let me help your outraged mind understand this basic concept.

                Lets say it takes 10 people to take a 2nd stage rocket from the loading bay, to the launch pad and get it mounted.

                Lets say there are 1000 processes and safety checks to do this task, and 5% of the parts involved can only do the task 5 times before being inspected, replaced and/or refurbished for whatever reason.

                SLS if I’m reading things right (I might be wrong) are going to launch ONCE in 2024.

                That’s 10 people doing 1000 processes with 0 part inspection or refurbishments required. (Edit: And they sit in an office for the rest of the year planning the next launch)

                SpaceX with those same 10 people, because it only takes 10 people to do the task, are going to do 144 launches in 2024. Every 2.5 days they’re going to move this thing.

                That’s 144,000 processes and safety checks, and 28.8 times that parts need to be monitored for wear and tear, refurbishment and replacements.

                You don’t think that there’s a higher chance that those 10 people might do something wrong in those 144,000 times, or in one of the 28.8 inspections? That even if those 10 people did everything perfectly every single time, that maybe, a piece of hardware might fail unexpectedly?

                You think those 10 people should have the exact same injury rate as the SLS people who did it once (edit: and then sat in an office the rest of the year)?

                It’s bonkers to think that.

                • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  The bottom line is this: if your accelerated processes are causing more workers to get injured, then you need to slow down. You must not churn out a second stage every 2.5 days if it means more injuries per worker.
                  Your argument is that these workers are doing more dangerous tasks more often and therefore that raises the injury rate, right? Well then they should be doing fewer dangerous tasks, and less often, then.

            • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              I never said I’m okay with people being injured, but it is FACT that injury rates change based off type of work.

              That’s a good point. We need better safety regulations for mass-manufactured space debris I imagine, since we just don’t have that type so far.

              • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                I imagine to some extent they are writing their own as they go given that’s the case. It probably wouldn’t hurt to have regulators come in and see if any new rules are needed (and being followed). Not like ocean rocket recovery on a drone ship was a thing before.

    • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s well known within the industry that SpaceX forces their employees to work excessive hours and in unsafe conditions. This is not a hit piece, and it’s weird for you say that at all.

      Pretty much all of Elon Musks companies have the same issue with overworked, underpaid employees.

      • cole@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I’d say “forces” is a bit strong wording. Most people at SpaceX genuinely love the mission and will work longer hours because it’s almost a passion.

        We’re pretty well-compensated too.

        • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          You work longer hours until you’re burned out. I’ve done it before. I also work for NASA and rarely work overtime, and the missions I support are doing just fine. It’s not about being passionate, although I used to think the same thing. I would have done anything to further our missions in space. But guess what, you’re being taken advantage of, whether you realize it or not.

          • cole@lemdro.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Totally valid, SpaceX doesn’t do a great job of trying to manage burnout. On the other hand, I personally work 40-50 hours a week to avoid burnout and have suffered no ill effects from doing so.

            You don’t HAVE to work long hours here.

    • stanleytweedle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      What is the injury rate per mass-to-orbit?

      Weird metric. So if SpaceX puts 10 tons in orbit and injures 10 people that should basically count the same as if ULA puts 1 ton in orbit and injures 1?

      • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        So if SpaceX puts 10 tons in orbit and injures 10 people that should basically count the same as if ULA puts 1 ton in orbit and injures 1?

        That’s more or less what I was getting at. Is the metric that weird?

        Building off of your example, suppose SpaceX puts 15 tons in orbit and injures 10 people, while ULA puts 1 tons in orbit and injures 1. If one wanted to launch 30 tons to orbit, what would the best decision be?

        • stanleytweedle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Yeah fuck it- let’s just start doing all safety ratings by pounds-of-flesh per unit output for every industry.

          “Your company had 10 deaths this year but you only made 7K tires… You’ll need to make up the balance by producing 3K more tires before end of fiscal year or we’ll have to fine you for safety violations.” lol- twisted but could be a fun comedy premise.

          Or wait- should we do output or actual sales? That would make more financial sense ;)

    • Ech@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Your account smells suspiciously of bootlicking.

      • lobut@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        6 months ago

        I was about to check their history but just looking at the name is a dead giveaway.

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      6 months ago

      It is adjusted per capita, anything else is pretty meaningless.

      The situation doesn’t appear to be improving. In 2023, the SpaceX facility in Brownsville, Texas, for example, reported an injury rate of 5.9 per 100 workers, a notable increase from 4.8 in 2022. Comparatively, the industry average remains significantly lower at 0.8 injuries per 100 workers, according to figures provided by Reuters.

      • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Comparatively, the industry average remains significantly lower at 0.8 injuries per 100 workers

        I wonder if this number contains only work injuries, or also other work related accidents such as murdered whistleblowers etc?

      • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        6 months ago

        I wonder how much of this increase is due to the current expansion at Starbase, which is very much an active construction site right now. I would be interested to see if these numbers go down once the facilities become more established.

        • bbuez@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          Ajajaja number go down after hard part, is like video game ajajaja I can afford you some missing fingers ajajaja

    • EarMaster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      How about injuries per billion dollar CEO worth? Or injuries per roadster in orbit (Spoiler alert: SpaceX is really bad in this category)?

    • Richard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Lol the injuries are not due to rocket launches, they are due to manufacturing. So your metric has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.

      • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        It seems like the metrics are for their whole operations, as the article highlights booster recoveries with most injuries.

        That said, the tons to orbit are meaningless when we’re talking about injuries per capita

      • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        Of course they are due to manufacturing (not launches), but SpaceX also manufactures and refurbishes more rockets than other launch providers. How is the metric meaningless?

    • GladiusB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      The “hit piece” that reports another company being run like absolute shit from the guy that is running a car company like shit, a space company like shit, a tube company that closed down and couldn’t even come close to what was promised.

      Am I missing something? Maybe it’s a hit piece because the guy is a piece…of shit.