2 ms·

I agree, zero would be ideal. Maybe I'm just too accustomed to the iteration we see all the time when SpaceX equipment fails. This is arguably more a traditio

I agree, zero would be ideal. Maybe I'm just too accustomed to the iteration we see all the time when SpaceX equipment fails. This is arguably more a traditional space program and less of a 'go fast and break things' process. IIRC, SpaceX also had some sort of glitch when docking with the station, on a crewed mission. Related to the thrusters, too, if memory serves.

colechristensen 2y ago
Found this https://www.space.com/spacex-dragon-international-space-station-glitch https://www.space.com/spacex-dragon-international-space-stat... Which was a problem, but it was a backup in case of a leak that broke, it had 0 effect and it was a cargo mission not a people mission. Starliner's failure today did have a significant mission effect and had people. SpaceX had a bunch of rocket landing failures on real missions, but that didn't matter because landing was a bonus, basically nobody had done that before and everything was just fine if a rocket blew up trying to land. SpaceX has also done a bunch of test launches with new vehicles, this also doesn't matter if they fail, they're specifically launched to find failures instead of expending tons of engineering effort which is more expensive than blowing up test rockets. Those things are quite separate from "there's people on board and several thrusters broke requiring unexpected manual pilot intervention", this was not expecting or allowing for failure by design but a serious anomaly that has to be researched how the problems weren't caught in human certification.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  SpaceX destroys a lot of hardware, but during almost quarter of a century of operations, they had AFAIK just one work fatality - a worker was blown off his truck in McGregor in 2014. No doubt they were lucky several times, but so were others, and most space institutions have much longer fatality lists, especially when adjusted to total flight volume.
  - SrslyJosh 2y ago
    Fatalities aren't the whole story. > The 2023 records, newly disclosed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, also show that injury rates at some SpaceX facilities grew worse than those the company had reported in 2022. At its manufacturing-and-launch facility in Brownsville, Texas, for instance, SpaceX reported 5.9 injuries per 100 workers, surpassing its rate of 4.8 injuries in 2022 and topping a space industry average of 0.8. That's 7x the industry average. Ref: https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2024-04-22/exclusive-injury-rates-for-musks-spacex-exceed-industry-average-for-second-year https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2024-04-22/exc...
    - inglor_cz 2y ago
      Could it be a reporting issue? Fatalities certainly aren't the whole story, but they do have one "advantage": they cannot be hushed away, at least not in the Western world. (In China or Russia, well...) That is why, in an analogical situation, crime and public safety of individual countries is often compared using murder levels. It is expected that most developed countries cannot really suppress/fudge murder statistics, even though they can do a lot of shenanigans around registration of lesser crime. I can see a similar situation with individual corporations and their diligence when it comes to reporting injuries.
      - HPsquared 2y ago
        Even murder statistics aren't foolproof when comparing crime rates across different countries and time periods, because of differences in medical care standards. Someone can be shot several times in the modern West and recover, but 200 years ago or in a poor country (or maybe in a more remote location) the same person would not survive and it would count as a homicide.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - bumby 2y ago
      Can you elaborate on what constitutes the “space industry” in this sense? Sometimes the OSHA groupings don’t align as well as one would think. A wet lab testing material compatibility and a rocket test stand can both be “aerospace” but have very different risk profiles.

colechristensen 2y ago

Found this https://www.space.com/spacex-dragon-international-space-station-glitch https://www.space.com/spacex-dragon-international-space-stat... Which was a problem, but it was a backup in case of a leak that broke, it had 0 effect and it was a cargo mission not a people mission. Starliner's failure today did have a significant mission effect and had people. SpaceX had a bunch of rocket landing failures on real missions, but that didn't matter because landing was a bonus, basically nobody had done that before and everything was just fine if a rocket blew up trying to land. SpaceX has also done a bunch of test launches with new vehicles, this also doesn't matter if they fail, they're specifically launched to find failures instead of expending tons of engineering effort which is more expensive than blowing up test rockets. Those things are quite separate from "there's people on board and several thrusters broke requiring unexpected manual pilot intervention", this was not expecting or allowing for failure by design but a serious anomaly that has to be researched how the problems weren't caught in human certification.

inglor_cz 2y ago
SpaceX destroys a lot of hardware, but during almost quarter of a century of operations, they had AFAIK just one work fatality - a worker was blown off his truck in McGregor in 2014. No doubt they were lucky several times, but so were others, and most space institutions have much longer fatality lists, especially when adjusted to total flight volume.
- SrslyJosh 2y ago
  Fatalities aren't the whole story. > The 2023 records, newly disclosed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, also show that injury rates at some SpaceX facilities grew worse than those the company had reported in 2022. At its manufacturing-and-launch facility in Brownsville, Texas, for instance, SpaceX reported 5.9 injuries per 100 workers, surpassing its rate of 4.8 injuries in 2022 and topping a space industry average of 0.8. That's 7x the industry average. Ref: https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2024-04-22/exclusive-injury-rates-for-musks-spacex-exceed-industry-average-for-second-year https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2024-04-22/exc...
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    Could it be a reporting issue? Fatalities certainly aren't the whole story, but they do have one "advantage": they cannot be hushed away, at least not in the Western world. (In China or Russia, well...) That is why, in an analogical situation, crime and public safety of individual countries is often compared using murder levels. It is expected that most developed countries cannot really suppress/fudge murder statistics, even though they can do a lot of shenanigans around registration of lesser crime. I can see a similar situation with individual corporations and their diligence when it comes to reporting injuries.
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      Even murder statistics aren't foolproof when comparing crime rates across different countries and time periods, because of differences in medical care standards. Someone can be shot several times in the modern West and recover, but 200 years ago or in a poor country (or maybe in a more remote location) the same person would not survive and it would count as a homicide.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - bumby 2y ago
    Can you elaborate on what constitutes the “space industry” in this sense? Sometimes the OSHA groupings don’t align as well as one would think. A wet lab testing material compatibility and a rocket test stand can both be “aerospace” but have very different risk profiles.