4 ms·
While I don't have numbers ready to cite, the steel industry is a superb analogue. It, too, is a hazardous production environment. It, too, has production rate
by madrox 4y ago
While I don't have numbers ready to cite, the steel industry is a superb analogue. It, too, is a hazardous production environment. It, too, has production rate as an OKR. I believe deaths in that industry used to measure in the thousands [1].
There's a history, at least in the US, of production rate correlating to fatality rate in certain hazardous industries. That said, one of the most famous steel CEOs (Paul O’Neill at Alcoa) put safety at the forefront and transformed the company and their production [2].
1: citation needed
2: https://www.forbes.com/sites/roddwagner/2019/01/22/have-we-learned-the-alcoa-keystone-habit-lesson/?sh=5b13335158ba https://www.forbes.com/sites/roddwagner/2019/01/22/have-we-l...
- kurthr 4y agoBut the steel industry has been doing the same thing (with largely the same facilities) for the last 50 years. The move to recycling and mini-mills is the biggest change in the last 40 years. The same is largely true of aluminum mills. You should be able to figure out how to make that safe, but you won't make anything, if you demand that everything be as safe the first time as it will be in industries, which are a century old.
- dboreham 4y agoAerospace industry is 120 years old.
- kurthr 4y agoWell, it was certainly a lot more dangerous then: https://youtu.be/ZNAHcMMOHE8?t=395 https://youtu.be/ZNAHcMMOHE8?t=395 : A trip to the moon 1901 But seriously, the point is that the techniques and facilities are not changing, which is blatantly not true of reusable meth-ox rockets. Or you can just say we'll stick to Saturn Vs to get to space.
- mrcartmeneses 4y agoYour point is moot
- lupire 4y agoAre you referring to the infamous Wright Brothers rocket ship?
- kccqzy 4y agoBy that logic the steel industry is 4000 years old.
- linkdink 4y agoWith occupational safety, just like anything else, you can hire professionals and set whatever objectives and deadlines your budget allows. Companies that embrace it get much better and faster results than companies that resist it.
- xattt 4y agoYour argument doesn’t hold well as the coal industry has been following the same recipe.
- TMWNN 4y ago>While I don't have numbers ready to cite, the steel industry is a superb analogue. It, too, is a hazardous production environment. It, too, has production rate as an OKR. I believe deaths in that industry used to measure in the thousands [1]. I recently read RAILWAY ADVENTURES AND ANECDOTES (1885) <https://www.gutenberg.org/files/31395/31395-h/31395-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/31395/31395-h/31395-h.htm>, a collection of interesting moments from the first 50 years of railroads. Almost every page there is a mention of some fatal accident for passengers and crews (usually a boiler explosion, and/or a derailment), yet everyone seems very matter-of-fact about such things despite (or, rather, because of) their frequency.
- ericd 4y agoI think the rough part of that analogy is that steel is at a different stage in its lifecycle as a product. Some innovation, to be sure, but nothing like this pace. Here, iteration speed is paramount. Perhaps SpaceX should move somewhat more slowly and focus more on safety, but I hope that people keep in mind that the only way to be perfectly safe is to do nothing with any risk, which in this case translates to making no real progress on rocketry. That comes with species-level risks. And if you double the amount of stuff done for each iteration, it might increase production time by much more than double, or potentially make some of the more difficult things impossible, as focus and momentum is lost, and mental state decays more between iterations.
- cafard 4y agoWhen my father worked for Republic Steel (1958-1969) it had a very strong safety culture.