Spacex has cavalier approach to safety

[jimbob]

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/sp ... sk-safety/

SpaceX rockets on a launchpad near Brownsville, Texas. The facility had a worker-injury rate six times the space-industry average in 2022. REUTERS/Go Nakamura

Reuters documented at least 600 previously unreported workplace injuries at Musk’s rocket company: crushed limbs, amputations, electrocutions, head and eye wounds and one death. SpaceX employees say they’re paying the price for the billionaire’s push to colonize space at breakneck speed.

[bob sterman]

Could equally write...

[insert name of Musk owned company] has cavalier approach to safety

e.g.


Unsafe & Injurious Working Conditions Reported At Tesla Factory
https://thesuffolkpersonalinjurylawyer. ... a-factory/

Tesla says its factory is safer. But it left injuries off the books
https://revealnews.org/article/tesla-sa ... the-books/

Inside Tesla’s Model 3 Factory, Where Safety Violations Keep Rising
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsma ... el-3-push/

[jimbob]

Could equally write...

[insert name of Musk owned company] has cavalier approach to safety

e.g.


Unsafe & Injurious Working Conditions Reported At Tesla Factory
https://thesuffolkpersonalinjurylawyer. ... a-factory/

Tesla says its factory is safer. But it left injuries off the books
https://revealnews.org/article/tesla-sa ... the-books/

Inside Tesla’s Model 3 Factory, Where Safety Violations Keep Rising
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsma ... el-3-push/

True.

But even so the death was due to a particularly blatant disregard for risks.

Having the task of transporting insulation and neglecting anything to tie it down to the truck... So getting an employee to sit on it to try to weight it down. All due to the lack of something that costs a few tens of dollars. And which even dodgy transit vans on the motorway tend to have.

[bob sterman]

And the latest failed launch is being described as an "incredibly successful day" - with that now well-used SpaceX euphemism for explosion - a "rapid unscheduled disassembly".

https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission ... p-flight-2

So of the 7 SpaceX Starship test flights lasting longer than 1 minute - 6 have ended with a "rapid unscheduled disassembly".

[tenchboy]

And the latest failed launch is being described as an "incredibly successful day" - with that now well-used SpaceX euphemism for explosion - a "rapid unscheduled disassembly".

https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission ... p-flight-2

So of the 7 SpaceX Starship test flights lasting longer than 1 minute - 6 have ended with a "rapid unscheduled disassembly".

"Unscheduled return to earth"

[jimbob]

And the latest failed launch is being described as an "incredibly successful day" - with that now well-used SpaceX euphemism for explosion - a "rapid unscheduled disassembly".

https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission ... p-flight-2

So of the 7 SpaceX Starship test flights lasting longer than 1 minute - 6 have ended with a "rapid unscheduled disassembly".

To be fair, they did manage to exercise the novel separation mechanism this time.

Over on ISF, I have been arguing that the first launch was pointless because it failed at a known weak point that they were intending to fix before anything novel had the chance to get tested. Also the risk to the local town was obviously too high given the tardiness of the disintegration rather than self destruct. And the damage to the neighbouring protected environment that was not SpaceX property... Which is also why I don't see how the libertarians are giving him a free pass. Because he's not paying sufficient compensation for damage to other people's property.
*.

*Property not potential injury because he'll, they're libertarians so lives have a weird and bad value relative to property.

[bolo]

RUD isn't particularly a SpaceX euphemism. It's been around much longer than that.

ETA this thread suggests that it dates back to at least the 1960s.

[bjn]

You generally go through a lot of rockets before you get it right. Very few rocket programs get it right first time, some not even on the tenth time. Also SpaceX is trying for iterative design that may blow more rockets up, but end up being cheaper. The Space Launch System used for the Artemis program got it right first time, but was eyebleedingly expensive.

Musk is still an a..eh.le regardless.

[jimbob]

You generally go through a lot of rockets before you get it right. Very few rocket programs get it right first time, some not even on the tenth time. Also SpaceX is trying for iterative design that may blow more rockets up, but end up being cheaper. The Space Launch System used for the Artemis program got it right first time, but was eyebleedingly expensive.

Musk is still an a..eh.le regardless.

And the previous Starship launch taught SpaceX nothing beyond the fact that something that was found to be essential for space launches 60 years ago is still essential. And that their self destruct didn't work as desired.

One was useless and the other was a risky way to find out - potentially risking thousands of casualties in Port Isabel or Brownville

[Pishwish]

And the previous Starship launch taught SpaceX nothing beyond the fact that something that was found to be essential for space launches 60 years ago is still essential. And that their self destruct didn't work as desired.

One was useless and the other was a risky way to find out - potentially risking thousands of casualties in Port Isabel or Brownville

Flame trenches are still essential for launches? SpaceX learned nothing beyond this and the fact that their FTS didn't work properly?

SpaceX wrote: Starship’s first flight test provided numerous lessons learned that are directly contributing to several upgrades being made to both the vehicle and ground infrastructure to improve the probability of success on future Starship flights...During [the first test flight's] ascent, the vehicle sustained fires from leaking propellant in the aft end of the Super Heavy booster, which eventually severed connection with the vehicle’s primary flight computer. This led to a loss of communications to the majority of booster engines and, ultimately, control of the vehicle. SpaceX has since implemented leak mitigations and improved testing on both engine and booster hardware. As an additional corrective action, SpaceX has significantly expanded Super Heavy’s pre-existing fire suppression system in order to mitigate against future engine bay fires.

There is a lot of anti-SpaceX commentary out there, mainly motivated by dislike of Musk (combined with an ignorance of spaceflight). I get it, I feel little joy in SpaceX's progress these days given his recent behaviour, but invalid criticism still gets on my nerves.
Lots of SpaceX critics on twitter made predictions that the last launch wouldn't take place this year if at all; it would be a disaster (the pad would be destroyed, the steel plate deluge system wouldn't work, the raptors are too unreliable, there are too many engines, etc.) Few have reflected on their inaccurate predictions, instead taking comfort in the failed goals of the launch.