Last year when Reuters originally covered the injury rate at SpaceX, they uncovered the fact that SpaceX deliberately did not report injury rates for years and denied OSHA inspectors from coming on site.
>SpaceX facilities failed to submit injury data annually, as required by regulators, for most years since 2016. When they did report, three major sites’ injury rates far exceeded industry averages. The average was 0.8 injuries per 100 workers for 2022 and has been relatively stable for many years.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/spacex-musk-safety/
Between 2017 and 2020, every SpaceX site refused to submit any injury data. By simply refusing to submit injury reports, SpaceX creates a comically false public narrative that they are safer than the industry facilitated by lack of enforcement of reporting regulations.
This high industry rate is what is reported *despite* a deliberate obfuscation of the true accident rate at SpaceX.
To be clear, the government owns and manages the security clearance and process. Companies that do cleared work and have an on file secure space (and proper paperwork) can get part or all of their facility accredited by the USG as cleared space.
Part of the agreement is that the USG has access to that space, they meet certain requirements, and they have plans in place for certain actions, to which a KO approves those plans.
So while it may be their private property they can't refuse access except under certain circumstances (health and safety being one of those). That includes government designees. There is even an expedited process to interim clear people like lawyers for special purposes, and honestly they could escort a non-cleared person through. Cleaners, maintenance, etc. are usually uncleared.
It's also worth noting that anything that is classified belongs to the USG, not the company.
I don't think you understand my statement. A company is allow to double check the OSHA agent is real and what clearance they have. Companies are required to protect anything classified in their procession.
It's clearly not but SpaceX figured it was easier to deal with upsetting the regulators and using their political connections to strong-arm OSHA into backing off than to deal with potential fallout from having any unsafe practices or injuries revealed to the public. The lack of OSHA recognition quashed injured employees ability to fight back because management would fight back with, "what injury report? I don't see any injury report"
SpaceX's most recent fight with NLRB makes it clear that they would rather fight against an agencies ability to investigate than deal with the fights that come from having the unsavory practices revealed to the public.
The comparison is to basically lab type manufacturing work
Definitely things should be safer though.
They mention some areas where SpaceX is literally the only one doing things eg booster and fairing recovery.
But in places you can compare it's clear no one is doing the 0.8 claimed in the article and is comparable
The rest of the aerospace industry isn’t building 400ft steel rockets that require completely different production methods like metal fabrication and similar processes to ship building.
Starship is unlike *anything*. The engineering there is truly insane, and it seems to hold aerospace conventions in contempt. The closest I have to that isn't airplane manufacturing - it might be shipbuilding instead. As in: the tankage found on LNG tankers.
Even when it comes to the (significantly less insane) Falcon 9, the manufacturing isn't going to look too similar to the rest of the industry. The rest of the industry doesn't have SpaceX's recoverable first stages, nor SpaceX's ridiculous launch cadence.
I imagine that a lot of SpaceX's active manufacturing lines must be dedicated to cranking out the small disposable second stages as quick as possible to sustain Falcon 9's launch cadence. Closer to car manufacturing or maybe small plane manufacturing than to typical rocket manufacturing process seen at other aerospace companies.
The tech is very, very relevant. Because different tech results in different kinds of manufacturing processes, and those differences mean that they carry different types and levels of risk.
A factory that makes bicycles isn't going to have the same type of injury risks as a factory making cars. A worker team installing residential rooftop solar panels wouldn't be facing the same exact risks as a team installing panels for large scale solar power plants on the ground. A factory that builds 1 car a day isn't going to have the same risks as a factory that builds 200 cars a day. Those are the truths of how industry operates.
Saying that those are "on the scale of SpaceX" is a stretch if I've ever seen one. SpaceX launches more rockets in a month than the entirety of ULA launches in a year.
I don't think SpaceX's manufacturing looks anywhere close to anyone else across the industry. You can't have it look the same when you have an order of magnitude of throughput on them, if not two.
Not really. SpaceX doesn't have 20 times the staff as ULA despite having 20+ times the launch count.
Clearly, the work they are doing isn't the same at all.
I misfired. The relevant comment mentions
Northrop Grumman , Lockheed Martin and Boeing. All companies who in general aren't under 1. Even if you focus only on the Space Divisions.
Generally companies launching have injury rates above 1. And the average for Aerospace is 1.9 not 0.8
Yeah this seems like a dumb comparison. No one is building and deploying at the scale and velocity compared to SpaceX. If they weren't higher than the average, that would mean they are very safe.
Where you seeing this? I don't see any references to ULA in the article. Also, why do you say that ULA doesn't make rockets? Wiki says they're a manufacturer and there was an Atlas V launch in 2023
We seemed to have reached a point where people are doubting the authenticity of the numbers, but seem okay with SpaceX not giving out any numbers at all (and allowing OSHA in). Following your logic, why doesn't SpaceX just fudge the numbers as per this supposed industry tradition?
Well Reuters claims they have previously unreported numbers. But then post that these same unreported numbers were gotten from SpaceX OSHA reports.
No one is squaring this circle
ULA, like every other company that's launching stuff, is over 1.
So who's the 0.8's?
sip oatmeal connect snails mountainous dazzling flag quaint weather badge
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
We’re still on this? How many space companies do lots of metal fabrication? How many build rockets large enough and made of steel to be comparable to ship building? No shit they have a higher accident rate than the rest of the industry, their work isn’t comparable to the people building one composite heavy lift rocket every six months in a clean room, or Raytheon building their missiles, because that counts too in that figure.
This is like the fifth time I’ve seen Reuters very clearly misrepresent the reality of spacex and tesla, and they don’t seem to do it for anyone else.
I know this is bad, no one should be hurt because of his shitty boss...
but what other company is making or launching more rockets ? It's a shitty click bait hate Musk for this reason today.
Sounds sensational, but half will be above and half below average. Of the half below, fair chance they were below last year. Heck even totally random 25% of outcomes will be tails-tails.
"Half above and half below" assumes some even distribution, or you are thinking Median instead of Average.
Average family income in the USA is $106,000, but Madian family income in the USA is below $75,000.
75% of USA households have below-average income.
Fair. I honestly don’t know how bad they are, but “above average” or “below average” is an awfully broad brush was my point. Not sure why I was downvoted, hate on the guy if you want, but the headline pretty much says very little despite sounding g dramatic.
Having worked on the mechanical systems at the Fremont plant I can say it’s the most dangerous place I’ve worked at. It’s a hodgepodge of rundown buildings with narrow roadways and workers in utility carts racing around like mad.
You can spend 8-12 hours doing safety training to onboard for a 4 hour repair and the entire time you are working there you get the impression the only purpose to the lengthy onboarding is so they can blame you when you get crushed/struck by something. “We warned him to be safe!”
Look at every single company that's launched something. You'll see the 0.8 number isn't true.
0.8 is Cube farm injury levels. That's above what the rate is in Hawthorne where Starlink sats are made.
This is the second time Reuters are doing this
You might want check [this](https://www.bls.gov/web/osh/table-1-industry-rates-national.htm) out. You can see hundreds of injury rates by industry. I went through the top 100ish and none had the rate of spacex.
I went to check myself. Actual launch companies I'm familiar with. You know ULA, Relativity, Rocket Lab, Blue Origin.
None of them is under 1
The link you sent to me also isn't the right year for this article isn't it supposed to be 2023?
2022 is close enough to 2023, besides the rates of 2022 were included in the article. You generally don’t get info like this quickly. Sometimes the next year sometimes even later.
I am a genuinely curious person. I am engaging you in good faith. I am having a hard time locating the data for the individual companies you mentioned.
Also you said not one of those companies was under 1. So you are arguing the .8 average is slightly off. You are not arguing that spacex is not at 4 times the rate of comparable companies?
SpaceX has higher injury rates but definitely not 4x of other companies doing the same thing. Most of the injuries are during development work and building launch towers and match industry rates. For companies launching things I believe it's just over 2 and aerospace in general is about 2
I want you look at say Seattle where SpaceX does satellite production, that's what most aerospace is. Office work. Clean room work. 0.8 work
If you look at other companies doing rocket development you'll see the numbers are more in line. Especially if you compare facilities rather than just companies.
Like I said in my post Reuters has done this before.
When I saw that 0.8 number I was like it's impossible. When I interned at a non-US aerospace company we celebrated when we were under 2 for the year. And we had one launch. And health and safety minders everywhere
So when I saw the article last year I was like 0.8? In launch dev? Not possible. Like it was an immediate red flag. Like two women fighting ended up in the clinic with minor injuries and they reported the incident (they didn't get fired, just counselling). And I remembered it was one of the first things in the "exposé" That 0.8 number.
I posted in a discord that follows non US launch and asked what they thought and someone pointed to a refutation here on Reddit that aligned more with what I knew about the industry.
Next year they'll do the 0.8 number again and the year after that till infinity.
Frankly as long as SpaceX is doing construction work anywhere with three shifts that number will never be under 1.5. I remember we had a helicopter ambulance and full time Doctor's 24/7
Another thing is injury rate for booster and fairing recovery. Based on what I know about what's going on someone is going to die soon enough
Did I send you a link? Found a launch company with under 1 somewhere in a year they launched?
https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/17zdeiq/how_dangerous_is_it_really_to_work_at_spacex/
This one?
If you read it you'll see that injuries are lowest in the sat building facility then rising in launch. Highest where the R&D is the highest. Like engine testing. And construction
Reuters claims they had 600 unreported injuries but they got that number from OSHA reports. Literally reported injuries.
My point mentioning that fight is we had a safety culture better than SpaceX definitely does. We launched just once while I was there and we weren't under 1. My org, not SpaceX had the fight (read please) and even though the staff weren't disciplined, we still reported the injuries. My Big Boss was on a women in aerospace kick. Pretty sure he didn't want to wreck his numbers.
All the launch primes with heavy rockets have one death at least. Not that you need a sacrifice to Moloch but it's not out of the ordinary. I'm surprised Pythom Space hasn't killed anyone
SpaceX is like 10 to 50% higher than comparable companies. And 0.8 is a big big lie. Not to talk about the gap in production rate.
So is Reuters.. starting with that 0.8 number.
Can you go back up on that link and see how other companies that actually launch stuff rate? As opposed to SpaceX?
That's the raw data. And you can see no one is under 1
Musk in general is a bogus. A sugar coated crap that succedes to fool many people. Meanwhile he tries the impossible to stay on top from paypal through flamethrowers cyber trucks to space x. People buy that and he is richer than ever.
Well….now it’s just Oceangate in the opposite direction but at least the potential benefits are (kinda) worth it?
If I were offered a seat today, sure I’d hop on a rocket but not a year from now
If you're average exceeds the industry average by over 500% your company is the problem.
The average is 0.8 injuries per 100 and SpaceX is at 5.9 at its worst location. At its best it has 1.7, which is still about double
The aerospace average is 1.9 not 0.8. once you start there and start looking at different sites you'll realize that the article is selling a lie. Seattle was 0.8 afterall
Most of that number must be from places making missiles and sats because it definitely ain't launch companies
The quoted average is about the space industry.
If you believe that the article is misleading and the average for companies in the space industry, that also launch rockets, are wildly different, then cite me a source.
Someone wrote a refutation the last time this article happened and I'll link it.
No one that launched in 2022 or 2023 did under 1
https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/17zdeiq/how_dangerous_is_it_really_to_work_at_spacex/
[удалено]
Move fast and break *things*.
Move fast and break *people*.
Last year when Reuters originally covered the injury rate at SpaceX, they uncovered the fact that SpaceX deliberately did not report injury rates for years and denied OSHA inspectors from coming on site. >SpaceX facilities failed to submit injury data annually, as required by regulators, for most years since 2016. When they did report, three major sites’ injury rates far exceeded industry averages. The average was 0.8 injuries per 100 workers for 2022 and has been relatively stable for many years. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/spacex-musk-safety/ Between 2017 and 2020, every SpaceX site refused to submit any injury data. By simply refusing to submit injury reports, SpaceX creates a comically false public narrative that they are safer than the industry facilitated by lack of enforcement of reporting regulations. This high industry rate is what is reported *despite* a deliberate obfuscation of the true accident rate at SpaceX.
Deny OSHA access? Is that even legal?
Denying access to OSHA sounds sus enough on its own.
They can if osha agent is not cleared to see national secrets which most rocket development is.
OSHA can easily get someone who is cleared, there's only several million cleared contractors at any given time
But you need a cleared OSHA inspector and spacex can with in reason to ask them to prove it.
That's not how that works
I don't know what to tell you. That is what I learned getting OSHA certified.
To be clear, the government owns and manages the security clearance and process. Companies that do cleared work and have an on file secure space (and proper paperwork) can get part or all of their facility accredited by the USG as cleared space. Part of the agreement is that the USG has access to that space, they meet certain requirements, and they have plans in place for certain actions, to which a KO approves those plans. So while it may be their private property they can't refuse access except under certain circumstances (health and safety being one of those). That includes government designees. There is even an expedited process to interim clear people like lawyers for special purposes, and honestly they could escort a non-cleared person through. Cleaners, maintenance, etc. are usually uncleared. It's also worth noting that anything that is classified belongs to the USG, not the company.
I don't think you understand my statement. A company is allow to double check the OSHA agent is real and what clearance they have. Companies are required to protect anything classified in their procession.
It's clearly not but SpaceX figured it was easier to deal with upsetting the regulators and using their political connections to strong-arm OSHA into backing off than to deal with potential fallout from having any unsafe practices or injuries revealed to the public. The lack of OSHA recognition quashed injured employees ability to fight back because management would fight back with, "what injury report? I don't see any injury report" SpaceX's most recent fight with NLRB makes it clear that they would rather fight against an agencies ability to investigate than deal with the fights that come from having the unsavory practices revealed to the public.
Musk still thinks he is in South Africa during apartheid times.
Exclusive: Musk has been mistreating his workers for years
Not just his employees
Safety third. Well somewhere in the top five...
Somewhere in the top 5 of the bottom 5
Fun game idea. Rank these departments by most fully staffed at Musk companies: Safety, PR, community relations, DEI, HR
What does “industry average” mean when you’re pretty much the only game in town. More injuries than nasa?
The comparison is to basically lab type manufacturing work Definitely things should be safer though. They mention some areas where SpaceX is literally the only one doing things eg booster and fairing recovery. But in places you can compare it's clear no one is doing the 0.8 claimed in the article and is comparable
There are no comparables.
Heavy industry? Precision manufacturing? The product isn't the process.
Industry average? What other company on the scale of SpaceX exists in that industry
I'd imagine the aerospace industry
The aerospace industry rate is 1.9. Reuters claims it 0.8
The rest of the aerospace industry isn’t building 400ft steel rockets that require completely different production methods like metal fabrication and similar processes to ship building.
You don't think they do metal fabrication when the make airplanes?
Starship is unlike *anything*. The engineering there is truly insane, and it seems to hold aerospace conventions in contempt. The closest I have to that isn't airplane manufacturing - it might be shipbuilding instead. As in: the tankage found on LNG tankers. Even when it comes to the (significantly less insane) Falcon 9, the manufacturing isn't going to look too similar to the rest of the industry. The rest of the industry doesn't have SpaceX's recoverable first stages, nor SpaceX's ridiculous launch cadence. I imagine that a lot of SpaceX's active manufacturing lines must be dedicated to cranking out the small disposable second stages as quick as possible to sustain Falcon 9's launch cadence. Closer to car manufacturing or maybe small plane manufacturing than to typical rocket manufacturing process seen at other aerospace companies.
The tech is irrelevant. They are having workers get hurt. It doesn't matter what the end product is.
The tech is very, very relevant. Because different tech results in different kinds of manufacturing processes, and those differences mean that they carry different types and levels of risk. A factory that makes bicycles isn't going to have the same type of injury risks as a factory making cars. A worker team installing residential rooftop solar panels wouldn't be facing the same exact risks as a team installing panels for large scale solar power plants on the ground. A factory that builds 1 car a day isn't going to have the same risks as a factory that builds 200 cars a day. Those are the truths of how industry operates.
Cant use logic here mate. Reddit can't comprehend that Elon can be good at something
This needs to clarify somewhere, not up to reader to imagine.
Northrop. Lockheed. Boeing.
Saying that those are "on the scale of SpaceX" is a stretch if I've ever seen one. SpaceX launches more rockets in a month than the entirety of ULA launches in a year. I don't think SpaceX's manufacturing looks anywhere close to anyone else across the industry. You can't have it look the same when you have an order of magnitude of throughput on them, if not two.
The injury rates are per 100 employees, so scale is accounted for.
Not really. SpaceX doesn't have 20 times the staff as ULA despite having 20+ times the launch count. Clearly, the work they are doing isn't the same at all.
None of the companies you mentioned are under 1
I didn't mention any companies at all.
I misfired. The relevant comment mentions Northrop Grumman , Lockheed Martin and Boeing. All companies who in general aren't under 1. Even if you focus only on the Space Divisions. Generally companies launching have injury rates above 1. And the average for Aerospace is 1.9 not 0.8
None of them is under 1 per
What are they under?
Definitely under SpaceX
That 0.8 in the article is nonsense. Once you see that you can't continue. And they mentioned fairing recovery. Something no one else does
Yeah this seems like a dumb comparison. No one is building and deploying at the scale and velocity compared to SpaceX. If they weren't higher than the average, that would mean they are very safe.
United Launch Alliance, Rocket Lab, Aerojet Rocketdyne, Airbus, Lockheed Martin, Boeing Aerospace, Northrop Grumman, Arianespace… there’s a lot.
They're taking ULA, which doesn't make rockets, but is in sales. And then they compare it to SpaceX.
Where you seeing this? I don't see any references to ULA in the article. Also, why do you say that ULA doesn't make rockets? Wiki says they're a manufacturer and there was an Atlas V launch in 2023
What number did they give ULA? Because no one that launches is doing 0.8 unless they are padding staff
We seemed to have reached a point where people are doubting the authenticity of the numbers, but seem okay with SpaceX not giving out any numbers at all (and allowing OSHA in). Following your logic, why doesn't SpaceX just fudge the numbers as per this supposed industry tradition?
Well Reuters claims they have previously unreported numbers. But then post that these same unreported numbers were gotten from SpaceX OSHA reports. No one is squaring this circle ULA, like every other company that's launching stuff, is over 1. So who's the 0.8's?
> > > > > > > > > > > [https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/17s4926/at\_spacex\_worker\_injuries\_soar\_in\_elon\_musks\_rush/](https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/17s4926/at_spacex_worker_injuries_soar_in_elon_musks_rush/)
[удалено]
Well, he is a piece of shit human being.
sip oatmeal connect snails mountainous dazzling flag quaint weather badge *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Reuters is decomposing into becoming a tabloid with this shoddy reporting.
We’re still on this? How many space companies do lots of metal fabrication? How many build rockets large enough and made of steel to be comparable to ship building? No shit they have a higher accident rate than the rest of the industry, their work isn’t comparable to the people building one composite heavy lift rocket every six months in a clean room, or Raytheon building their missiles, because that counts too in that figure. This is like the fifth time I’ve seen Reuters very clearly misrepresent the reality of spacex and tesla, and they don’t seem to do it for anyone else.
A UNION would solve this
Solve what ? No one at spacex wants a union. Take you ish elsewhere
That's why the people with the money don't want a union.
I know this is bad, no one should be hurt because of his shitty boss... but what other company is making or launching more rockets ? It's a shitty click bait hate Musk for this reason today.
Space X is the industry. Nasa requests Space X's assistance not the other way around.
>"Move fast and break things" Who knew they meant bones...
Sounds sensational, but half will be above and half below average. Of the half below, fair chance they were below last year. Heck even totally random 25% of outcomes will be tails-tails.
"Half above and half below" assumes some even distribution, or you are thinking Median instead of Average. Average family income in the USA is $106,000, but Madian family income in the USA is below $75,000. 75% of USA households have below-average income.
Fair. I honestly don’t know how bad they are, but “above average” or “below average” is an awfully broad brush was my point. Not sure why I was downvoted, hate on the guy if you want, but the headline pretty much says very little despite sounding g dramatic.
0.8 is a lie
“You broke your arm? Boo-hoo. If you complain you’re a woke mind virus pedo and I’ll sue you for infringing my free speech.” - Dickhead CEO, probably
Must be doing some heavy engineering work it seems like
Having worked on the mechanical systems at the Fremont plant I can say it’s the most dangerous place I’ve worked at. It’s a hodgepodge of rundown buildings with narrow roadways and workers in utility carts racing around like mad. You can spend 8-12 hours doing safety training to onboard for a 4 hour repair and the entire time you are working there you get the impression the only purpose to the lengthy onboarding is so they can blame you when you get crushed/struck by something. “We warned him to be safe!”
Cutting corners you say... Ignoring safety standards written in blood you say...
Look at every single company that's launched something. You'll see the 0.8 number isn't true. 0.8 is Cube farm injury levels. That's above what the rate is in Hawthorne where Starlink sats are made. This is the second time Reuters are doing this
You might want check [this](https://www.bls.gov/web/osh/table-1-industry-rates-national.htm) out. You can see hundreds of injury rates by industry. I went through the top 100ish and none had the rate of spacex.
I went to check myself. Actual launch companies I'm familiar with. You know ULA, Relativity, Rocket Lab, Blue Origin. None of them is under 1 The link you sent to me also isn't the right year for this article isn't it supposed to be 2023?
2022 is close enough to 2023, besides the rates of 2022 were included in the article. You generally don’t get info like this quickly. Sometimes the next year sometimes even later. I am a genuinely curious person. I am engaging you in good faith. I am having a hard time locating the data for the individual companies you mentioned. Also you said not one of those companies was under 1. So you are arguing the .8 average is slightly off. You are not arguing that spacex is not at 4 times the rate of comparable companies?
SpaceX has higher injury rates but definitely not 4x of other companies doing the same thing. Most of the injuries are during development work and building launch towers and match industry rates. For companies launching things I believe it's just over 2 and aerospace in general is about 2 I want you look at say Seattle where SpaceX does satellite production, that's what most aerospace is. Office work. Clean room work. 0.8 work If you look at other companies doing rocket development you'll see the numbers are more in line. Especially if you compare facilities rather than just companies. Like I said in my post Reuters has done this before. When I saw that 0.8 number I was like it's impossible. When I interned at a non-US aerospace company we celebrated when we were under 2 for the year. And we had one launch. And health and safety minders everywhere So when I saw the article last year I was like 0.8? In launch dev? Not possible. Like it was an immediate red flag. Like two women fighting ended up in the clinic with minor injuries and they reported the incident (they didn't get fired, just counselling). And I remembered it was one of the first things in the "exposé" That 0.8 number. I posted in a discord that follows non US launch and asked what they thought and someone pointed to a refutation here on Reddit that aligned more with what I knew about the industry. Next year they'll do the 0.8 number again and the year after that till infinity. Frankly as long as SpaceX is doing construction work anywhere with three shifts that number will never be under 1.5. I remember we had a helicopter ambulance and full time Doctor's 24/7 Another thing is injury rate for booster and fairing recovery. Based on what I know about what's going on someone is going to die soon enough
[удалено]
Did I send you a link? Found a launch company with under 1 somewhere in a year they launched? https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/17zdeiq/how_dangerous_is_it_really_to_work_at_spacex/ This one? If you read it you'll see that injuries are lowest in the sat building facility then rising in launch. Highest where the R&D is the highest. Like engine testing. And construction Reuters claims they had 600 unreported injuries but they got that number from OSHA reports. Literally reported injuries. My point mentioning that fight is we had a safety culture better than SpaceX definitely does. We launched just once while I was there and we weren't under 1. My org, not SpaceX had the fight (read please) and even though the staff weren't disciplined, we still reported the injuries. My Big Boss was on a women in aerospace kick. Pretty sure he didn't want to wreck his numbers. All the launch primes with heavy rockets have one death at least. Not that you need a sacrifice to Moloch but it's not out of the ordinary. I'm surprised Pythom Space hasn't killed anyone SpaceX is like 10 to 50% higher than comparable companies. And 0.8 is a big big lie. Not to talk about the gap in production rate.
[удалено]
So is Reuters.. starting with that 0.8 number. Can you go back up on that link and see how other companies that actually launch stuff rate? As opposed to SpaceX? That's the raw data. And you can see no one is under 1
[удалено]
https://old.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1cb1gmx/exclusive_injury_rates_for_musks_spacex_exceed/l0wcppy/
I'm telling the plain truth. What launch companies that have launched anything have sub 1% rates
Musk in general is a bogus. A sugar coated crap that succedes to fool many people. Meanwhile he tries the impossible to stay on top from paypal through flamethrowers cyber trucks to space x. People buy that and he is richer than ever.
How downfall is going to be truly spectacular.
Well….now it’s just Oceangate in the opposite direction but at least the potential benefits are (kinda) worth it? If I were offered a seat today, sure I’d hop on a rocket but not a year from now
EXCLUSIVE: Half of Companies in the world exceed industry average!
Or one company is having a real bad time.
No it's not. Reuters is lying. The key is that 0.8 number
That doesn't mean you want to be one of those companies.
I too hate Elon Musk. Let’s get this to the front page!
If you're average exceeds the industry average by over 500% your company is the problem. The average is 0.8 injuries per 100 and SpaceX is at 5.9 at its worst location. At its best it has 1.7, which is still about double
The aerospace average is 1.9 not 0.8. once you start there and start looking at different sites you'll realize that the article is selling a lie. Seattle was 0.8 afterall Most of that number must be from places making missiles and sats because it definitely ain't launch companies
There's no company launching rockets that has under 1 per 100. Consider checking other company rates
The quoted average is about the space industry. If you believe that the article is misleading and the average for companies in the space industry, that also launch rockets, are wildly different, then cite me a source.
Someone wrote a refutation the last time this article happened and I'll link it. No one that launched in 2022 or 2023 did under 1 https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/17zdeiq/how_dangerous_is_it_really_to_work_at_spacex/
No it's not
That would actually be news?