Current Events > Worker injuries soar at SpaceX

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/spacex-musk-safety/

...
It was hardly the last serious accident at SpaceX. Since LeBlancs death in June 2014, which hasnt been previously reported, Musks rocket company has disregarded worker-safety regulations and standard practices at its inherently dangerous rocket and satellite facilities nationwide, with workers paying a heavy price, a Reuters investigation found. Through interviews and government records, the news organization documented at least 600 injuries of SpaceX workers since 2014.

Many were serious or disabling. The records included reports of more than 100 workers suffering cuts or lacerations, 29 with broken bones or dislocations, 17 whose hands or fingers were crushed, and nine with head injuries, including one skull fracture, four concussions and one traumatic brain injury. The cases also included five burns, five electrocutions, eight accidents that led to amputations, 12 injuries involving multiple unspecified body parts, and seven workers with eye injuries. Others were relatively minor, including more than 170 reports of strains or sprains.

Current and former employees said such injuries reflect a chaotic workplace where often under-trained and overtired staff routinely skipped basic safety procedures as they raced to meet Musks aggressive deadlines for space missions. SpaceX, founded by Musk more than two decades ago, takes the stance that workers are responsible for protecting themselves, according to more than a dozen current and former employees, including a former senior executive.

Musk himself at times appeared cavalier about safety on visits to SpaceX sites: Four employees said he sometimes played with a novelty flamethrower and discouraged workers from wearing safety yellow because he dislikes bright colors.

The lax safety culture, more than a dozen current and former employees said, stems in part from Musks disdain for perceived bureaucracy and a belief inside SpaceX that its leading an urgent quest to create a refuge in space from a dying Earth.

Elons concept that SpaceX is on this mission to go to Mars as fast as possible and save humanity permeates every part of the company, said Tom Moline, a former SpaceX senior avionics engineer who was among a group of employees fired after raising workplace complaints. The company justifies casting aside anything that could stand in the way of accomplishing that goal, including worker safety.

Looking into it

SLS is on life support. Without SpaceX, there is no moon program that can beat whatever China has in mind.

The conditions suck but there's no alternative. We get a foothold in space or we surrender it because we waited an extra 5 or 10 years for government programs to not even match the offering.

Starks posted...

SLS is on life support. Without SpaceX, there is no moon program that can beat whatever China has in mind.

The conditions suck but there's no alternative. We get a foothold in space or we surrender it because we waited an extra 5 or 10 years for government programs to not even match the offering.

Hard doubt.

"We need to disregard worker protections because China might do something with the moon" is not, to me, a compelling argument

Antifar posted...

"We need to disregard worker protections because China might do something with the moon" is not, to me, a compelling argument

They'll go up there and change its name to The Mao.

DrizztLink posted...

They'll go up there and change its name to The Mao.

All because people selfishly didn't break (more) limbs

Starks posted...

SLS is on life support. Without SpaceX, there is no moon program that can beat whatever China has in mind.

The conditions suck but there's no alternative. We get a foothold in space or we surrender it because we waited an extra 5 or 10 years for government programs to not even match the offering.

Getting back to the moon ASAP is not worth sacrificing the safety of workers.

So an exploration company is shunning safety regs in order to rush to the finish line?

I'm sure it'll turn out just as well as it did last time.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/3/3ff433d7.jpg

Dont really get why were supposedly in another space race anyway. Who cares?

DrizztLink posted...

They'll go up there and change its name to The Mao.

Once they get there, they'll see our white flag and think we surrendered it.

Starks is such a joke, y'all need to just ignore his dumb ass

Not arguing against labor laws. Nobody else here has proposed a single alternative to SpaceX.

I expect a crackdown and it's needed. It wouldn't take away from anything.

I've been pissed at commercial space companies for years. When simple things like forgetting a ladder while working on a module and then forcing a person to jump off and then break their leg so bad it has to be amputated, that's unacceptable.

There's no happy medium and mimicking what Boeing is doing is wrong as well. You can have the strictest safety standards imaginable and still fail every milestone and test thrown at you.

Almost like privatization of space exploration is a bad thing

Governments are worse unless money is no object. The US doesn't act that way obviously.

I remember Andre would consistently post that commercial space travel and exploration should be banned. And replaced with what?

Even Europe is finally wising up to the idea of having multiple launch companies instead of just humping Ariane and their failed Vega launches.

Starks posted...

Not arguing against labor laws. Nobody else here has proposed a single alternative to SpaceX.

I mean NASA is still a thing? And how does connect to China?

Starks posted...

Governments are worse unless money is no object. The US doesn't act that way obviously.

I remember Andre would consistently post that commercial space travel and exploration should be banned. And replaced with what?

Even Europe is finally wising up to the idea of having multiple launch companies instead of just humping Ariane and their failed Vega launches.

Ehh.. I'd say "Governments are worse unless profit is not the objective"

l HATE ELON MUSK SO MUCH

Antifar posted...

Four employees said he sometimes played with a novelty flamethrower and discouraged workers from wearing safety yellow because he dislikes bright colors.

The dude is just completely a manchild. He should be completely disallowed to have any employees.

Ruvan22 posted...

I mean NASA is still a thing?

Being a thing, and being an alternative are not one and the same.

You really wanna go to the moon on a rushed rig?

Prismsblade posted...

Being a thing, and being an alternative are not one and the same.

True, but what makes it not an alternative?

Ruvan22 posted...

I mean NASA is still a thing? And how does connect to China?

Ehh.. I'd say "Governments are worse unless profit is not the objective"

NASA has no interest in manned space flight beyond what congress dictates as jobs projects for the sake of jobs and maybe one or two strategically important flagship missions.

Starks posted...

NASA has no interest in manned space flight beyond what congress dictates as jobs projects for the sake of jobs and maybe one or two strategically important flagship missions.

I'm not sure I agree NASA is only governed by "job prospects for the sake of jobs" but if we take your argument to be true, what's the problem? It's led to numerous ventures into space that are still ongoing ...

GATTJT posted...

Starks is such a joke, y'all need to just ignore his dumb ass

That's the leader of the 261 refugees you're talking about. Show him some respect.

A_Good_Boy posted...

That's the leader of the 261 refugees you're talking about. Show him some respect.

Here's my respect:

https://youtu.be/FXHkFZ-nG4Y?t=21

Ruvan22 posted...

I'm not sure I agree NASA is only governed by "job prospects for the sake of jobs" but if we take your argument to be true, what's the problem? It's led to numerous ventures into space that are still ongoing ...

It's extremely corrupt. SLS only made it this far because of Sen. Shelby leading the committee in mandating it when Alabama, his state, would benefit most. And because SLS is still a thing, it's billions of dollars too expensive per launch and is years behind schedule. It's endless paperwork. Boeing chose to do similar paperwork for their capsule and it still failed countless tests. Meanwhile, SpaceX tests their way through approvals.

Starks posted...

It's extremely corrupt. SLS only made it this far because of Sen. Shelby leading the committee in mandating it when Alabama, his state, would benefit most. And because SLS is still a thing, it's billions of dollars too expensive per launch and is years behind schedule. It's endless paperwork. Boeing chose to do similar paperwork for their capsule and it still failed countless tests. Meanwhile, SpaceX tests their way through approvals.

You didn't answer my question - what's the problem w/ continuing to allow NASA (and potentially SLS) to progress? Why the rush to get into space faster that justifies condoning SpaceEx fatalities?

Also your "it's extremely corrupt"/"only made it this far" are really broad statements (like saying NASA only creates jobs to create jobs) - do you have a source? Wiki shows some criticism of the selection process - but nothing concrete?

Finally what do you mean "SpaceX tests their way through approvals"? Successful launches? That wasn't your criticism of SLS - it was cost per launch.

You didn't answer my question - what's the problem w/ continuing to allow NASA (and potentially SLS) to progress? Why the rush to get into space faster that justifies condoning SpaceEx fatalities?

NASA should continue developing and supporting its in-home and contracted solutions. SLS can and should continue. The money is already spent and it will have unique capabilities if ever fully realized. Artemis might be possible without SLS but we really should use it for the crew rating and abort methods.

NASA should also be extremely proud if the Dream Chaser launch goes perfectly next month.

If there's a rush or a new space race, it's because geopolitics and the dawn of literal space warfare began this past month. Twice now. That is not an excuse to cut corners or endanger employees. SpaceX has a cowboy bang-that-together attitude and it has unacceptable costs It has to stop. Mistakes and shitty safety culture on the ground will kill. And then those same mistakes can be deadly or costly as Russia, Blue Origin, SpaceX, etc have shown.

Also your "it's extremely corrupt"/"only made it this far" are really broad statements (like saying NASA only creates jobs to create jobs) - do you have a source? Wiki shows some criticism of the selection process - but nothing concrete?

I can post contracts and the like but 1 billion per launch is insane. The cost comes from these contracts being legacy and poorly structured. Falcon Heavy isn't even 100 million per launch and it's mostly reusable.

Reference:
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105609
https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-23-015.pdf

Finally what do you mean "SpaceX tests their way through approvals"? Successful launches? That wasn't your criticism of SLS - it was cost per launch.

For example, SpaceX exhaustively tested their Crew Dragon using helicopter drops. Boeing decided to do paperwork instead to barely meet the requirements and then still had their parachutes and other components perform poorly during their Starliner tests.

CoyoteTheGreat posted...

The dude is just completely a manchild. He should be completely disallowed to have any employees.

Muskrat thinks he's Tony Stark, but actually he's Justin Hammer, only stupider.

Ruvan22 posted...

True, but what makes it not an alternative?

Aside from their utter stagnation the past few decades they arent any less guilty of the issues outlined above as spaceX throughout their history. Even more so actually.

Frankly Im not sure what you see in modern NASA for them to be a alternative.

Starship should just be a starship. I don't want people on it unless it's in space. Somehow, we have to make it work as a lunar lander, a Skylab, a moon base, etc. We're doing this hard mode.

Starks posted...

I've been pissed at commercial space companies for years. When simple things like forgetting a ladder while working on a module and then forcing a person to jump off and then break their leg so bad it has to be amputated, that's unacceptable.

As someone who played Kerbal Space Program, that second sentence hits too true in a different meaning.

Prismsblade posted...

Aside from their utter stagnation the past few decades they arent any less guilty of the issues outlined above as spaceX throughout their history. Even more so actually.

Frankly Im not sure what you see in modern NASA for them to be a alternative.

A) "Utter stagnation" is also a broad generalization, how exactly are you qunatifying this?
B) Please cite where NASA disregarded safety precautions that led to injuries on the scale SpaceX has
C) Are you complaining about NASA as a whole? Or NASA's methods to launch things? Because your first paragraph is the former and your second is the latter...
D) Interesting that you didn't post anything till Starks longer post... do you have anything to add beyond "What he said"?

Starks posted...

NASA should continue developing and supporting its in-home and contracted solutions. SLS can and should continue. The money is already spent and it will have unique capabilities if ever fully realized. Artemis might be possible without SLS but we really should use it for the crew rating and abort methods.

NASA should also be extremely proud if the Dream Chaser launch goes perfectly next month.

If there's a rush or a new space race, it's because geopolitics and the dawn of literal space warfare began this past month. Twice now. That is not an excuse to cut corners or endanger employees. SpaceX has a cowboy bang-that-together attitude and it has unacceptable costs It has to stop. Mistakes and shitty safety culture on the ground will kill. And then those same mistakes can be deadly or costly as Russia, Blue Origin, SpaceX, etc have shown.

So the bolded is why you are making these statements about urgency? Which incidents are you referring to? (I genuinely could have missed them) The Israeli missile defense incident doesn't seem to apply..

I can post contracts and the like but 1 billion per launch is insane. The cost comes from these contracts being legacy and poorly structured. Falcon Heavy isn't even 100 million per launch and it's mostly reusable.

Reference:
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105609
https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-23-015.pdf

None of these show "massive corruption" or that the project "only made it this far because of Shelby"?

For example, SpaceX exhaustively tested their Crew Dragon using helicopter drops. Boeing decided to do paperwork instead to barely meet the requirements and then still had their parachutes and other components perform poorly during their Starliner tests.

If I'm following you correctly, SpaceX used a different method to test their capsules than Boeing.. and did more paperwork? I'm not sure how this is a criticism of NASA?