Scrutable

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 wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2023 10:50 am 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/

bob sterman wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2023 9:58 am 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".

bob sterman wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2023 9:58 am 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".

bjn wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2023 8:01 pm 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

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.

bjn wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2023 9:11 am Reuters has a report out on the consistent failure of basic automotive parts in a range of Tesla cars. Steering linkages, suspension components and drive shafts, stuff the rest of the industry tend to get right and have done so for a while. It appears that Tesla knew of these problems but they would blame failures on customers in an attempt to save money on warranty repairs. Reuters quotes internal documents to support this, including communications between engineers and the interesting fact that about 5% of Tesla cars in the Southern Europe and Middle Eastern market had a failure in a single “aft link” suspension component. China has force a Tesla recall to address some of these issues, while regulators in the rest of the world have yet to do anything.

Incidents quoted include a chap whose new car’s suspension collapsed less while turning at low speed than a day after collecting it from Tesla. The company insisted he had damaged it and made him pay for repairs. Another was an electrical failure they blamed on a customer because he had the temerity to put his car through a car wash.

The article points out that if Tesla were to take responsibility and pay for the repairs to their faulty cars it would be a big hit to their profitability and their market valuation.

My main issue with the report is that it doesn’t compare failure rates and modes to new cars from other manufacturers.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/sp ... uspension/

bjn wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2023 9:11 am Reuters has a report out on the consistent failure of basic automotive parts in a range of Tesla cars. Steering linkages, suspension components and drive shafts, stuff the rest of the industry tend to get right and have done so for a while.

bob sterman wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2023 7:36 pm

bjn wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2023 9:11 am Reuters has a report out on the consistent failure of basic automotive parts in a range of Tesla cars. Steering linkages, suspension components and drive shafts, stuff the rest of the industry tend to get right and have done so for a while.

Could the high failure rates be due to EVs generally being heavier than petrol/diesel powered cars?

bob sterman wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2023 7:36 pm

bjn wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2023 9:11 am Reuters has a report out on the consistent failure of basic automotive parts in a range of Tesla cars. Steering linkages, suspension components and drive shafts, stuff the rest of the industry tend to get right and have done so for a while.

Could the high failure rates be due to EVs generally being heavier than petrol/diesel powered cars?

Grumble wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2023 9:45 pm

bob sterman wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2023 7:36 pm

bjn wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2023 9:11 am Reuters has a report out on the consistent failure of basic automotive parts in a range of Tesla cars. Steering linkages, suspension components and drive shafts, stuff the rest of the industry tend to get right and have done so for a while.

Could the high failure rates be due to EVs generally being heavier than petrol/diesel powered cars?

9 of the 10 heaviest cars on sale are petrol or diesel powered

bob sterman wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2023 8:36 am

Grumble wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2023 9:45 pm

bob sterman wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2023 7:36 pm

Could the high failure rates be due to EVs generally being heavier than petrol/diesel powered cars?

9 of the 10 heaviest cars on sale are petrol or diesel powered

Where? Not in the UK. 5 of 10 heaviest are EV or Hybrid.

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/tips-advi ... -cars-sale

Some Teslas have weights close to these luxury models (e.g. 2,400 kg). If they using suspension components etc more typical of mid-market lighter cars maybe that could be contributing to the high failure rates?

noggins wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2023 12:03 pm Meh, the details of the “top ten…” are irrelevant if they are low volume outliers, what matters is eg petrol golf vs electric golf.
I suspect its Tesla inexperience showing through.

noggins wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2023 12:03 pm Meh, the details of the “top ten…” are irrelevant if they are low volume outliers, what matters is eg petrol golf vs electric golf.
I suspect its Tesla inexperience showing through.

Grumble wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2023 12:25 pm

noggins wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2023 12:03 pm Meh, the details of the “top ten…” are irrelevant if they are low volume outliers, what matters is eg petrol golf vs electric golf.
I suspect its Tesla inexperience showing through.

Like I say, Toyota have had quite a few recalls over the years for fairly basic mistakes. The difference is more that they didn’t try to blame the drivers.