Split Thread Musk, SpaceX and future of Tesla

[jeremyp]

idk it just looks like the truck has a bunch of holes in it

They are not holes, they are dents.

and if i'm in a cybertruck and someone starts shooting at me with a machine gun i should be pretty worried.

I doubt it. I think you'd be pretty dead, as you would in any other unarmored vehicle. In this video, a variety of firearms and ammunition are used and only .22 and shotgun pellets were reliably stopped from going through both sides of the car.

it reminds me of the time he smashed the window with that brick. like, why are you showing this to people?

As Fast Eddie says, it was a steel ball bearing. I heard that they had practised on the same windows and that was enough to weaken the glass.

 

[Puppycow]

 

[tyr_13]

Devastating workplace accidents have been increasing at SpaceX facilities, due to Musk's actions. He even tells workers not to wear safety, high vis, equipment because he doesn't like bright colors.

Lame af.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Devastating workplace accidents have been increasing at SpaceX facilities, due to Musk's actions. He even tells workers not to wear safety, high vis, equipment because he doesn't like bright colors.

Lame af.

The 2022 injury rate at the company’s manufacturing-and-launch facility near Brownsville, Texas, was 4.8 injuries or illnesses per 100 workers – six times higher than the space-industry average of 0.8. Its rocket-testing facility in McGregor, Texas, where LeBlanc died, had a rate of 2.7, more than three times the average. The rate at its Hawthorne, California, manufacturing facility was more than double the average at 1.8 injuries per 100 workers. The company’s facility in Redmond, Washington, had a rate of 0.8, the same as the industry average.

Bureau of Labor Statistics private industry employer-reported workplace injury/illness rates 2022

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 4.1
Transportation and warehousing 4.8
Healthcare and social assistance 4.5
Arts, entertainment and recreation 4.2

I can't find any info on this so-called 'space-industry average', except that in 2011 NASA claimed to have achieved a 'record low' OSHA incident rate of 0.87 injuries per 100 full time employees. But NASA is a government agency. I'm not sure how this figure relates to private industry.

 

[jeremyp]

Bureau of Labor Statistics private industry employer-reported workplace injury/illness rates 2022

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 4.1
Transportation and warehousing 4.8
Healthcare and social assistance 4.5
Arts, entertainment and recreation 4.2

I can't find any info on this so-called 'space-industry average', except that in 2011 NASA claimed to have achieved a 'record low' OSHA incident rate of 0.87 injuries per 100 full time employees. But NASA is a government agency. I'm not sure how this figure relates to private industry.

I’m sure the victims and their families will be reassured that there are more dangerous places to work.

 

[dirtywick]

it's also likely that spacex under reports. from the graph:

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.

regardless, the rate isn't even very important. strains and illnesses are commonplace in all industries, and the more dangerous and physically demanding the more common. the amputations and deaths, less so.

 

[jeremyp]

Starlink is going well...

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...s-they-dont-have-tech-support-just-a-faq-wtf/

There's some sort of bug in Starlink's account management software and their complete lack of any effective customer support is causing frustration amongst the affected customers.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Devastating workplace accidents have been increasing at SpaceX facilities, due to Musk's actions. He even tells workers not to wear safety, high vis, equipment because he doesn't like bright colors.

Lame af.

If further proof were needed that Galaxy Brain shouldn't be involved in any task more complex or mentally demanding than stacking shelves, this is it.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Starlink is going well...

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...s-they-dont-have-tech-support-just-a-faq-wtf/

Lack of proper customer service is inexcusable. StarLink needs to fix this as soon as possible.

That said, overall StarLink is going fabulously well. Launching a gazillion satellites into orbit using reusable boosters to provide internet to the world has got to be one of the greatest technological marvels of the 21st century. It’s what I’m using now in semi-rural Tennessee and has been quite reliable. THAT said, for us it’s just a rather expensive ($120/month after the initial $500 hardware cost) temporary solution until our local utility lays down fiber internet, promised in “early 2024.

 

[tyr_13]

Bureau of Labor Statistics private industry employer-reported workplace injury/illness rates 2022

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 4.1
Transportation and warehousing 4.8
Healthcare and social assistance 4.5
Arts, entertainment and recreation 4.2

I can't find any info on this so-called 'space-industry average', except that in 2011 NASA claimed to have achieved a 'record low' OSHA incident rate of 0.87 injuries per 100 full time employees. But NASA is a government agency. I'm not sure how this figure relates to private industry.

From the article highlighted methodology section:

When comparing these rates to the space-industry average, the news organization used an estimated average injury-and-illness rate produced annually by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS derives industry averages by collecting a representative sample of data from companies in a given industry; it cannot by law release data from individual firms surveyed.

It would be a very safe bet to suppose that Reuter's reporters whose job it is to find such things are better at accessing that data than you are.

The disregard SpaceX has shown for safety isn't in any way mitigated by other industries being dangerous. There is no excuse for having safety lines on equipment painted black or blue, no not even that Elon doesn't like safety yellow or orange.

 

[Ziggurat]

It would be a very safe bet to suppose that Reuter's reporters whose job it is to find such things are better at accessing that data than you are.

No, that would not be a safe bet at all. You seem to think reporters have special competence. They do not. Gell-Mann amnesia in effect.

And I don't say this in defense of SpaceX. Their safety record may indeed be abysmal. I say this because your deference to the press is completely unwarranted. If Reuters happened to get this story right, it's not because they're better at researching stuff than people outside the press.

 

[tyr_13]

No, that would not be a safe bet at all. You seem to think reporters have special competence. They do not. Gell-Mann amnesia in effect.

And I don't say this in defense of SpaceX. Their safety record may indeed be abysmal. I say this because your deference to the press is completely unwarranted. If Reuters happened to get this story right, it's not because they're better at researching stuff than people outside the press.

Straight wrong and contains many silly straw men.

I am not comparing 'reports in general' to Roger. I am comparing these Reuter's reporters who are citing sources. I am not comparing these Reuter's reporters to anyone outside of 'the press'; I am comparing them to Roger.

And professional, studied, journalists are as a group going to be better at such study and fact finding than the general public. That's what their training is in. Yes, not everyone and probably not even most people who call themselves 'press' have that training. But you know who does? MARISA TAYLOR who was part of the Panama Paper's team and indeed has an inordinately strong record.

The attacks on expertise and hate of the press may have become so ingrained in your political circles that it goes without saying that anyone in the press can't be a trustworthy source of journalism standards, but that doesn't make it reality. Some people really are better at their jobs than you are at their jobs.

 

[Ziggurat]

The attacks on expertise and hate of the press may have become so ingrained in your political circles that it goes without saying that anyone in the press can't be a trustworthy source of journalism standards, but that doesn't make it reality. Some people really are better at their jobs than you are at their jobs.

This is all just an appeal to authority. Nobody is above having their work checked, and that's all Roger did. You seem to take offense to that, for some strange reason. And his question stands. What companies exactly are SpaceX's injury rates being compared to? Taylor does give a citation, which with some digging gets us to this chart for 2022:

https://www.bls.gov/iif/nonfatal-in...d-illness-rates-by-industry-2022-national.htm

The NAICS code Taylor uses as a comparison is 336414, "Guided missile and space vehicle manufacturing", and that does have a listed injury rate of 0.8, but who does this category include? Does it really include all of SpaceX's peers? Does it include companies that are NOT really peers of SpaceX? Do you know? Does Taylor know?

And calling it a "space industry" average is bull ****. There is no "space industry" NAICS code. There's an "Aerospace product and parts manufacturing" category, of which this is part, and it's got a significantly higher injury rate of 1.9.

And a lot of what SpaceX is doing right now would accurately be considered "construction", which falls under the NAICS category 23, and has an injury rate of 2.4. Subfields have even higher rates, such as "Highway, street, and bridge construction" at 2.7, or "Foundation, structure, and building exterior contractors" at 3.2, both of which SpaceX is engaged in.

And did you know that "Tortilla manufacturing" has an injury rate well in excess of SpaceX's at 6.2?

You can appeal to the expertise of the press all you want to. But these statistics mean less than you seem to think they do. And the kicker is, again, none of this even excuses SpaceX, nor do I intend or claim it does. Even if the injury rate is low, if good safety practices aren't being followed, that's a problem. If lapses lead to preventable injury, that's a problem. All of that is independent of the statistics. If one worker dies from negligence, that's a problem even if the overall rate is below industry average.

But NAICS codes aren't as definitive as you seem to think, Taylor's comparison isn't as meaningful as you seem to think, and Roger wanting more details about the basis of comparison (and her citation tells us very little) isn't invalid at all.

 

[tyr_13]

This is all just an appeal to authority. Nobody is above having their work checked, and that's all Roger did. You seem to take offense to that, for some strange reason. And his question stands. What companies exactly are SpaceX's injury rates being compared to? Taylor does give a citation, which with some digging gets us to this chart for 2022:

https://www.bls.gov/iif/nonfatal-in...d-illness-rates-by-industry-2022-national.htm

The NAICS code Taylor uses as a comparison is 336414, "Guided missile and space vehicle manufacturing", and that does have a listed injury rate of 0.8, but who does this category include? Does it really include all of SpaceX's peers? Does it include companies that are NOT really peers of SpaceX? Do you know? Does Taylor know?

And calling it a "space industry" average is bull ****. There is no "space industry" NAICS code. There's an "Aerospace product and parts manufacturing" category, of which this is part, and it's got a significantly higher injury rate of 1.9.

And a lot of what SpaceX is doing right now would accurately be considered "construction", which falls under the NAICS category 23, and has an injury rate of 2.4. Subfields have even higher rates, such as "Highway, street, and bridge construction" at 2.7, or "Foundation, structure, and building exterior contractors" at 3.2, both of which SpaceX is engaged in.

And did you know that "Tortilla manufacturing" has an injury rate well in excess of SpaceX's at 6.2?

You can appeal to the expertise of the press all you want to. But these statistics mean less than you seem to think they do. And the kicker is, again, none of this even excuses SpaceX, nor do I intend or claim it does. Even if the injury rate is low, if good safety practices aren't being followed, that's a problem. If lapses lead to preventable injury, that's a problem. All of that is independent of the statistics. If one worker dies from negligence, that's a problem even if the overall rate is below industry average.

But NAICS codes aren't as definitive as you seem to think, Taylor's comparison isn't as meaningful as you seem to think, and Roger wanting more details about the basis of comparison (and her citation tells us very little) isn't invalid at all.

What a needlessly long way to say, 'she's right but I'm upset about it, here let me move those goalposts...'

I mean, congrats on also being better than Roger at finding this information? You're saying that I was also right but you're mad about that too.

You have zero evidence that any of the work wasn't being checked, either internally or by competitors. Roger not finding the numbers isn't evidence they weren't, you found the numbers which did confirm the experts did their due diligence, but you still object to their good work because...no reason. Experts and media bad because...no reason.

 

[Ziggurat]

What a needlessly long way to say, 'she's right but I'm upset about it, here let me move those goalposts...'

You can get every single fact you print correct, and still not get the story right. But she didn’t even do that, because the category she used for comparison wasn't the "space industry", as she wrote. We have no idea what the accident rate is for actually comparable companies. And you haven't even tried to find out the truth.

 

[tyr_13]

You can get every single fact you print correct, and still not get the story right. But she didn’t even do that, because the category she used for comparison wasn't the "space industry", as she wrote. We have no idea what the accident rate is for actually comparable companies. And you haven't even tried to find out the truth.

Except not only is the story right, you've presented nothing but support for what she wrote. You've made it clear that you're not even trying to argue against the thesis of the story.

Unless you have actual evidence to conclude the NAICS placement is wrong, there isn't a better place to put SpaceX than in the category it was in. You assert that 'maybe' there are mitigating factors, but that's not a reason to deny the utility of the comparison being made. It further ignores all the other more detailed evidence from SpaceX facilities that were not doing construction. It supposes that other similar companies are not engaged in construction. Remember, this is a per-capita rate.

"The 2022 injury rate at the company’s manufacturing-and-launch facility near Brownsville, Texas, was 4.8 injuries or illnesses per 100 workers – six times higher than the space-industry average of 0.8. Its rocket-testing facility in McGregor, Texas, where LeBlanc died, had a rate of 2.7, more than three times the average. The rate at its Hawthorne, California, manufacturing facility was more than double the average at 1.8 injuries per 100 workers. The company’s facility in Redmond, Washington, had a rate of 0.8, the same as the industry average."

You would love to cherry pick this out and elevate hypothetical 'concerns' to if the number is useful data, but then you're just going from dismissing the work of the Reuter's journalists, to dismissing the expertise of the NAICS data gathering system! Experts don't know what they are doing all the way down! This one data point doesn't prove negligence on the part of SpaceX, but it is a piece of evidence that indicates it.

It is one thing to question (just asking questions!) if this number is true or if it is the correct one to use, but once you've looked and found the information, it's now not skepticism but denialism. Refusing to accept well sourced and reputable answers to 'questions' isn't critical thinking nor skepticism. Not being able to find the answers in a data set you know contains the data to construct the answer in a cursory search isn't reason to deny the work of highly regarded journalists who doubtlessly worked much harder for much longer with much more insight into how exactly to do that.

Putting in 'I don't know if this bit is right' when constructing what is clearly intended to be a rebuttal of the thesis of the piece can't be used as evidence the piece was wrong.

And the semantic handwave of 'well I don't think space industry means the same' is just weak assertion. You figured out very quickly what the article referenced so you know what they meant by it.

 

[jeremyp]

Lack of proper customer service is inexcusable. StarLink needs to fix this as soon as possible.

That said, overall StarLink is going fabulously well.

The jury is still out on that. There's still the question of whether it is economically viable.

Launching a gazillion satellites into orbit using reusable boosters to provide internet to the world has got to be one of the greatest technological marvels of the 21st century.

Really? Polluting the sky with gazillions of satellites so that people can play World of Warcraft* more effectively is one of the greatest technological marvels of the century?

It’s what I’m using now in semi-rural Tennessee and has been quite reliable.

So it's great if you live out in the sticks. However, 90% of Americans live in urban areas that can be serviced more effectively with fibre.

THAT said, for us it’s just a rather expensive ($120/month after the initial $500 hardware cost) temporary solution until our local utility lays down fiber internet, promised in “early 2024.

As I said, the economic case is not yet made.

*or whatever the current multiplayer game du jour is.

 

[jeremyp]

You can get every single fact you print correct, and still not get the story right. But she didn’t even do that, because the category she used for comparison wasn't the "space industry", as she wrote. We have no idea what the accident rate is for actually comparable companies. And you haven't even tried to find out the truth.

Don't you think what SpaceX does is "space vehicle manufacturing"? It seems like a good description to me.

Of course there are issues. The main one is that fore a long period of time, most SpaceX facilities were not reporting their figures. That should raise alarm bells.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Clearly, SpaceX and Starlink are very important technology companies that have far-reaching national security implications.

A President could put them under the Defence Production Act with one document, forcing Musk to comply to very specific rules or risk having them nationalized.

Simples.

 

[dirtywick]

Don't you think what SpaceX does is "space vehicle manufacturing"? It seems like a good description to me.

Of course there are issues. The main one is that fore a long period of time, most SpaceX facilities were not reporting their figures. That should raise alarm bells.

he said they're more like a construction company, which constructs space vehilces, not manufactures them. if anything they manufacture maybe launch pads. well they would if they didn't contract that kind of stuff out to construction companies.