We know for sure that even later in the Block 5 generation the re-usability got better. So that isn't controversial.
I would assume their 'favorites' are being pushed in order to get engineering information on those flights, not because they are superior to the others of the same build.
Space industry average is an utterly useless and idiotic thing used for comparison.
Most of those companies make tiny sats, or things like small thrusters. Or even small sub-components. And even those that build larger things, build them at far smaller rates.
SpaceX in Brownsville should be compared to things like manufacturing oil platforms or maybe wind power plants.
You are comparing people that work on small sats to people who work on the largest rocket in human history.
McGregor is the most active rocket engine test facility in the world.
How are their insure rates compared 'per rocket engine test' with other places that test large rocket engines. But again, most of those are tiny rocket engines being test, so how about we look at insure per unit of thrust tested.
> The company’s facility in Redmond, Washington, had a rate of 0.8, the same as the industry average.
And what is the rate per sat produced compared to others?
> Along the lines of "we produce more stuff, so cutting corners on worker safety is ok".
Well but that really isn't it.
Its more like doing X has some inherent danger and if you do more of X then its likely more people are gone be insured. So comparing to some 'industry avg' in an industry that also includes people building cube-sats compared to the most powerful rocket engine isn't really fair.
And I wasn't suggesting this to say what SpaceX is doing is inherently ok (I don't know enough) but to establish better comparative baselines.
Then we can actually figure out if SpaceX is more unsafe or simply does more dangerous activity.
Actually it does. If you assume that doing some a difficult dangerous task like, testing a rocket engine, building a building sized rocket or launching a rocket is inherently dangerous, and no amount of safety will get the injury rate to 0.
So if a company only does 5 engine test and 1 launch a year and has 10 injuries, then that is inherently worse then a company that does 1000 engine tests and 100 launches but has 20 injuries.
If it was truly this kind of naive progression, things sound pretty simple.
However, we both know reality tends to be more complex than that.
For example, a company with vastly more experience doing engine tests (etc) should also have vastly more experience designing safe testing processes and procedures. To the point where they may eliminate injuries completely. ;)
So saying worker injuries are acceptable due to the output quantity of stuff still seems like an excuse for poor workplace practises.
If they double their output of stuff, are you ok with them increasing the number of worker injuries rather than figuring out how to reduce or eliminate the injuries?
My point is this, how do you know their practices are worse if you don't compare.
If SpaceX does 100x as many rocket engine test but has only a 2x worse insure rates then what you suggest:
> should also have vastly more experience designing safe testing processes and procedures
Is already true.
So articles that just say 'SpaceX bad because more insury then avg' just don't actually provide any information.
> To the point where they may eliminate injuries completely. ;)
> So saying worker injuries are acceptable due to the output quantity of stuff still seems like an excuse for poor workplace practises.
Sure if we lived in a perfect world that would be nice. But no other type of building anything has perfect safety.
And the way you are phrasing your statement still just assumes SpaceX has 'poor workplace practices'. But we in my opinion have not actually been presented sufficient evidence that this is actually true.
So yes its no excuse for 'poor practices' but I have yet to be convinced that their practices actually poor. There is a difference between saying their practice isn't perfect and its actually poor.
It seems to me these articles just want to say something bad about SpaceX because they know this will create clicks rather then do the actual real work of analyzing safety in rocket testing and manufacturing.
> If they double their output of stuff, are you ok with them increasing the number of worker injuries rather than figuring out how to reduce or eliminate the injuries?
You are simply framing the question in a way where there can never be right answer. Of course continuously improving safety is important. At the same time evaluating safety by comparing companies that do 100x more of something and then screaming 'see they are unsafe, is clearly not fair either'.
If they double their output and injury rates go up by 1.1x times, then that is pretty successful.
So before being negative, please actually show me real actual data in how much their output went up compare do their injury rate. Then maybe we can figure out something relevant about their safety practices. Until then this is just headlines.
And lets compare with relevant industries. How does their rocket engine test facility compare with other rocket engine test facilities. The South Texas manufacturing sight should be compared with a shipyard or building an oil platforms, and not with companies building small rocket.
> If they double their output and injury rates go up by 1.1x times, then that is pretty successful.
Again, I don't buy that increasing output by default means increasing injury rates at all is acceptable. :(
There's just not enough info in these theoretical examples, and neither of us are experts in the domain.
For example, are they doubling the output with the same # of staff (eg increased automation path), or by ~doubling the number of workers?
If it's by doubling the number of workers, then you might be right. But if they're using increased automation without increasing worker count, then an increased # of injuries would by pretty shitty.
Lots of different ESA and Arianespace made lots of arrogant and wrong statements over the years, trust me as somebody that has followed it.
Their claims about illegal subsidies were always utterly hilarious. It was literally just them appealing to European nationalism without any evidence. They were basically saying to convince clueless ESA member-state politicians of nonsense. There is a reason they haven't even tried to bring this to the WTO, they knew they were full of shit.
Its not a crazy idea, its a smart idea. There are two things that aim against it, export regulation. These could be overcome but it would require a lot of politics and cooperation.
Second, Europe has NIH syndrome and until reticently were 100% convinced that they were simply superior and would never have even considered it even if the US was open to it.
But not reinventing the wheel on the engines and things like that would make a lot of sense. Its just not practical in the current environment.
Up until severe sanctions started in 2022, Arianespace launched soyuz rockets out of guyana they bought from russia.
Were it not for ITAR, and probably spacex's business model, I'm sure they'd love to buy a bunch of falcon 9s, and barges to go with them. That site would likely be the most payload you could get out of one of those rockets, prograde.
And the thing is, depending on how you do the agreement. Europe could produce the engines themselves, they only would need plans and help with manufacture.
This isn't unprecedented in the space industry. Its how India and China worked with Russian engines. And it also happens between commercial companies.
In case of a complete breakdown of relation Europe could continue to manufacture the engine.
This would allow for in-depended access and still produce jobs in Europe. This could serve for both a large, medium and small rocket. Additionally it could allow for learning to do landing. Also, Europe has a decent second stage engine that they could have combined with that first stage.
Europe has to get away from solid fuel boosters and hydrogen main engines, its totally the wrong architecture and moving away from it would have been smart. Sadly they domed themselves with the Ariane 6 and Vega designs.
If not the US, you could have done the same with something like the RD-191 or something like that.
You are totally wrong. SpaceX is deeply entangled with NASA and DoD. And their primary IP is protected under US regulation, nobody can 'take it away'. And SpaceX launch site and team are essentially purely American. Its crazy to suggested that they could be 'lured away', its a total misunderstanding of the space industry.
Yea, it's like they don't know what ITAR is. If you tried to walk away with the technology men with guns would take it back, you would come back too, dead if you decided to put up resistance.
I feel both sides are exaggerating here - "lured with right combination" and "men with guns". Both of these aren't really working like this in our world.
Ehh ITAR is very serious, national security level stuff. Sure it's not like agents will have you assassinated, but you will definitely be taken by men with guns (the police/FBI) if you try and export that tech.
There was some discussion in some rocketry forum of possible collisions between tech export and the First Amendment. I think this is still a somewhat open question.
You may end up in case of "You can avoid the rap, but you cannot avoid the ride". And the avoidance would cost a lot.
Of course you might get a national security letter silencing you from even talking to the judges, getting put in a nice trap if you try to garner support to defend yourself on what you did you could run into further issues.
SpaceX would only be willing to make that jump if it were fine never getting a contract from the US government again, which means the US economy and/or state imploded.
The dead part is the only exaggeration. That would be a last resort.
If you tried to pack up SpaceX (so to speak) and its technology and move it overseas, the FBI would arrest you and promptly stop you. If you put a fight, they would respond accordingly. That's assuming you were in a position to order that attempted move (you'd have to be Musk, Shotwell probably couldn't get very far given Musk's ownership position).
SpaceX is a very significant national security matter for the US Government and military industrial complex. Of course they would kill you if you legitimately threatened that critical cornerstone; first they'd try to reason with you, maybe subtly threaten you not to try it, then they'd attempt to arrest you (and then in private try to make their point more loudly); if there were no other options, they would kill you to stop the transfer.
This isn't Medtronic or Anheuser-Busch we're talking about. The machine that invades countries, topples governments, takes on other superpowers (Nazi Germany, Empire of Japan, Soviet Union, Russia, China), fights massive wars as it deems necessary (WW2, Korea, Vietnam), and kills people professionally - it needs SpaceX at this point in time (and the future edge that SpaceX launch capabilities may provide).
All of that depends on having a president and congress that would refuse to approve the transfer. Right now, it’s not going anywhere but who knows what the next administration or two might bring to the table.
It also helps when you own a major social media platform when you are trying to get something done.
The only region that could reasonably host SpaceX would be the middle east. You'd get the Saudis or the Qataris using their money cannon to get what they want, and setting up launch operations in the desert, staffed by untaxed and overpaid expats from all over the globe.
And completely aside from that, I really really doubt you'll find people willing to stomach the Musk management/work style outside the US. Just look at the Tesla strikes in Europe.
Americans for of uniquely have the skills and organizational ability, combined with a brutalized work ethic that allows for things like SpaceX to succeed in such a short time.
> The EU should be focused on generating demand like Commercial Cargo/Commercial Crew did
The EU has long given up on Cargo supply to ISS and that budget is bound in the Orion Service module.
And Crew wont happen in Europe anytime soon.
They simply don't have those things, and partly this is because of their own bad planning and investment.
> then allowing fixed price providers to meet it however they can
The problem is there are no such provider and there wont be anytime soon. Even if they were, they would be small providers who can't launch 90% of the value that Europe might want to launch to orbit in the next decade.
So sure this is a nice sentiment but its not realistic anytime soon.
> Ariane has turned into a lumbering zombie
It always was. Its just that the American and Russians took themselves out of the game by pure stupidity. So Europe was really the only option left.
I don't think we'd even want to launch crew. ISS is slated to be decommissioned soon so what's the point in spending billions on it? There might not even be another one, the Russians certainly won't be involved. And I don't think ESA will go it alone
For cargo Ariane is in the shitpit yes but they're in good company with ULA etc. SpaceX caught the whole industry unprepared.
Actually there was a big movement for crew launches in the 90s. This died becuase it was gone cost way to much.
In the last 2 years there has been a very big marketing campaign by various austronauts and people from ESA to push the idea of a commercial crew from Europe. You can find various article like 'Getting serious about crewed flight' and stuff like that. So there is defiantly a big movement within ESA and European space that want it. However the political will behind any of that has not been even remotely shown.
> ISS is slated to be decommissioned soon so what's the point in spending billions on it?
ISS wasn't slated for decommission when the Europeans decided to stop doing cargo.
And ISS will not be the last space station in human history.
Also I didn't suggest they should invest in crew.
> For cargo Ariane is in the shitpit yes but they're in good company with ULA etc. SpaceX caught the whole industry unprepared.
ESA used to have the ATV but it got to expensive for them. ULA never cared that much. As soon as cargo went commercial other defense contractors snatched it up and used their own rocket, see Cygnus and Antares . ULA is a pure launch company they wouldn't have anything to do with ISS cargo unless somebody booked the flight.
Engines are also cleaned. In fact, one landing failure happened because left over cleaning alcohol in the engine itself.