Row 25724

Row ID: 25724 | Dataset Entry | Axioma AXP Content Repository

Content Data

This page contains data entry 25724 from the Axioma AXP content repository. The structured data below represents the complete record for this entry.

​

>For that year, the facility reported data amounting to an injury rate of 21.5 injuries per 100 workers, about 27 times the industry average. The facility employed only 50 people at the time... Sixteen of those workers were injured, SpaceX reported.

**Incorrect.** The figures they present contradict themselves. Most likely the original data referred to “about 50 people” and 74 to be exact. Which does not negate the question: why is the injury rate so high? To answer this question we need to go back to 2016, where SpaceX is [gradually](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Space_Center_Launch_Complex_39A#SpaceX) building a launch pad in KSC and launching Falcon 9 mostly from SLC-40, with occasional launches from SLC-4E into polar orbits. [Suddenly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches_(2010%E2%80%932019)#2016), in early September 2016, the AMOS-6 explosion destroys the SLC-40 and leaves them with no place to launch payloads into most orbits for their customers. This made completing the LC-39A their #1 priority.

An educated guess as to what happened next is that SpaceX filled KSC with hundreds of workers hastily completing the launch pad for NASA’s CRS-10 launch in February 2017. These hundreds of workers were noted in the statistics of injuries and illnesses, but since they were in place only for the last 3 months of the year, they did not show up in the employment statistics of this facility. Because I find it hard to believe that more than [5,000](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RheeHZXFAMEmGmnLATwYY62y__13UqX2wESsye48zz8/) SpaceX employees at that time were sitting for almost three months and waiting for a group of 74 brave workers to finish the job that was stopping all other company’s activities.

**Reuters failed to check the consistency of the data they received and to provide readers with any context of what this data might mean.**

​

>A dozen worker-safety experts said SpaceX’s poor safety record underscores the perils of working in the lightly regulated and fast-expanding U.S. space industry.

**Misleading.** All the data that Reuters has provided so far suggests that SpaceX records are at least 10% worse than the industry average and 3 times better than the average for the US, which can hardly be called “poor safety record”. In addition, the US space industry does an excellent job with its level of regulation, consistently [showing](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RheeHZXFAMEmGmnLATwYY62y__13UqX2wESsye48zz8/edit#gid=435553397&range=A41) the level of injuries and illnesses 3 times lower than the US average.

FieldValue
text ​ >For that year, the facility reported data amounting to an injury rate of 21.5 injuries per 100 workers, about 27 times the industry average. The facility employed only 50 people at the time... Sixteen of those workers were injured, SpaceX reported. **Incorrect.** The figures they present contradict themselves. Most likely the original data referred to “about 50 people” and 74 to be exact. Which does not negate the question: why is the injury rate so high? To answer this question we n…
label r/technology
dataType comment
communityName r/technology
datetime 2024-05-21
username_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak1DQzVPVEhfekwwaWNyamVfMklfS1o4WE1QY1ptd3pFZ3pyemh0Q3BjeVdHbG1WYnp1ay1pakZkSUhzZGpmV2NFdlFNR19UWFRWWXl6blUwV2dSZWNBeGc9PQ==
url_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9Tdnd0RFVrWXBmdXFUdzdiQU5lZFVCci1wM2E1Y3VKMEl6UzVtLTFnZGZ5SVR4MFltdmZFWDVKSFhoNW1EbkR1SThpUGZ5cWFNQmkxSm1VX3RqdHJMRml4SV9vSFVSQnpGZjd5blpyWjd1QXhQb3lscTgxdmdKaXU5T0NFc3NwR0kzT3dBWnVWeWpHcTdXZERpZ19XbFZuLWMzR2daZmlITmJwMmhwWmpOdEpyRXN5bVJNaWtZOXhDbmFZQnV3NnZqN3JLZVNtd2kxZ0FoemFNV2hCRVczQT09

Raw Record

{
  "text": "​\n\n>For that year, the facility reported data amounting to an injury rate of 21.5 injuries per 100 workers, about 27 times the industry average. The facility employed only 50 people at the time... Sixteen of those workers were injured, SpaceX reported.\n\n**Incorrect.** The figures they present contradict themselves. Most likely the original data referred to “about 50 people” and 74 to be exact. Which does not negate the question: why is the injury rate so high? To answer this question we need to go back to 2016, where SpaceX is [gradually](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Space_Center_Launch_Complex_39A#SpaceX) building a launch pad in KSC and launching Falcon 9 mostly from SLC-40, with occasional launches from SLC-4E into polar orbits. [Suddenly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches_(2010%E2%80%932019)#2016), in early September 2016, the AMOS-6 explosion destroys the SLC-40 and leaves them with no place to launch payloads into most orbits for their customers. This made completing the LC-39A their #1 priority.\n\nAn educated guess as to what happened next is that SpaceX filled KSC with hundreds of workers hastily completing the launch pad for NASA’s CRS-10 launch in February 2017. These hundreds of workers were noted in the statistics of injuries and illnesses, but since they were in place only for the last 3 months of the year, they did not show up in the employment statistics of this facility. Because I find it hard to believe that more than [5,000](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RheeHZXFAMEmGmnLATwYY62y__13UqX2wESsye48zz8/) SpaceX employees at that time were sitting for almost three months and waiting for a group of 74 brave workers to finish the job that was stopping all other company’s activities.\n\n**Reuters failed to check the consistency of the data they received and to provide readers with any context of what this data might mean.**\n\n​\n\n>A dozen worker-safety experts said SpaceX’s poor safety record underscores the perils of working in the lightly regulated and fast-expanding U.S. space industry.\n\n**Misleading.** All the data that Reuters has provided so far suggests that SpaceX records are at least 10% worse than the industry average and 3 times better than the average for the US, which can hardly be called “poor safety record”. In addition, the US space industry does an excellent job with its level of regulation, consistently [showing](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RheeHZXFAMEmGmnLATwYY62y__13UqX2wESsye48zz8/edit#gid=435553397&range=A41) the level of injuries and illnesses 3 times lower than the US average.",
  "label": "r/technology",
  "dataType": "comment",
  "communityName": "r/technology",
  "datetime": "2024-05-21",
  "username_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak1DQzVPVEhfekwwaWNyamVfMklfS1o4WE1QY1ptd3pFZ3pyemh0Q3BjeVdHbG1WYnp1ay1pakZkSUhzZGpmV2NFdlFNR19UWFRWWXl6blUwV2dSZWNBeGc9PQ==",
  "url_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9Tdnd0RFVrWXBmdXFUdzdiQU5lZFVCci1wM2E1Y3VKMEl6UzVtLTFnZGZ5SVR4MFltdmZFWDVKSFhoNW1EbkR1SThpUGZ5cWFNQmkxSm1VX3RqdHJMRml4SV9vSFVSQnpGZjd5blpyWjd1QXhQb3lscTgxdmdKaXU5T0NFc3NwR0kzT3dBWnVWeWpHcTdXZERpZ19XbFZuLWMzR2daZmlITmJwMmhwWmpOdEpyRXN5bVJNaWtZOXhDbmFZQnV3NnZqN3JLZVNtd2kxZ0FoemFNV2hCRVczQT09"
}
Explore Dataset Explore Row

Entry Information