Wilshire@lemmy.worldcake to Space@lemmy.world · 2 months agoInjury Rates at SpaceX Soar Above Industry Normsgizmodo.comexternal-linkmessage-square55fedilinkarrow-up1269arrow-down110
arrow-up1259arrow-down1external-linkInjury Rates at SpaceX Soar Above Industry Normsgizmodo.comWilshire@lemmy.worldcake to Space@lemmy.world · 2 months agomessage-square55fedilink
minus-squareRichard@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up13arrow-down1·2 months agoLol the injuries are not due to rocket launches, they are due to manufacturing. So your metric has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
minus-squarehemko@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·2 months agoIt seems like the metrics are for their whole operations, as the article highlights booster recoveries with most injuries. That said, the tons to orbit are meaningless when we’re talking about injuries per capita
minus-squarethreelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down5·2 months agoOf course they are due to manufacturing (not launches), but SpaceX also manufactures and refurbishes more rockets than other launch providers. How is the metric meaningless?
Lol the injuries are not due to rocket launches, they are due to manufacturing. So your metric has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
It seems like the metrics are for their whole operations, as the article highlights booster recoveries with most injuries.
That said, the tons to orbit are meaningless when we’re talking about injuries per capita
Of course they are due to manufacturing (not launches), but SpaceX also manufactures and refurbishes more rockets than other launch providers. How is the metric meaningless?