Apparently SpaceX is an OSHA-free chaos zone with a silly goal

Beer Baron said:

bobzilla said:

He's rich so he must be evil. People only get rich by being evil. Did you not get the memo?

Money and power do not automatically make someone more evil. But money and power absolutely increase someone's capacity to do evil, and give greater tools to avoid consequences of their actions.

It is absolutely reasonable to put increased scrutiny on the practices of such people and to question any "hero" or "savior" narratives surrounding them.

But that's not whats going on here is it? OR any of these recent threads. IT's the typical suspects whining about evil rich people over and over with little more than sensational headlines and FEEWINGS!

I usually disagree with Gameboy on drivel like this, and I think the thread title is sensationalist BS.  However, the article linked is seriously compelling. 
 

I think it is important to separate our feelings about an individual poster on this site, or an attitude about wealthy people from the merits of the article. 
 

Im with Gameboy this time. Looks like SpaceEx needs some safety improvements. 

bobzilla said:

In reply to alfadriver :

Jeebus f'n c..... ok, lets start at the damn beginning. My response that you quoted was to ProDarwin's comment that people say its ok that someone died because mars. So, with that in mind read what I stated. I said I see people saying "people do stupid things and people die." Full stop. Complete thought ended there for a moment. People, in general, do stupid things no matter how many safety nets are in place because that's what people do. When they do that, people can die. Put them into a high risk/high reward career like, I dunno, ROCKETS and that can and will result in people dying. Period. Same with things like mining, demolition, high-rise construction etc. High risk jobs, when you do something stupid, will bite harder than some shmo sitting in an office somewhere. 

 

So if an person dies in space because of some stupid engineer or technician, that just happens?  Because it's high risk/reward?  The people doing the stupid things are not the ones who are dying, or at least not the ones who are really risking their lives.

I honestly don't understand your point.  I'm not attacking your feelings, BTW.  

I think the original Reuters research should have drawn attention to the gross negligence and failure of OSHA and the regulators instead of being so narrowly focused on SpaceEx.

Its easy to make the rich guy the villain. 

SV reX said:

alfadriver said:

bobzilla said:

In reply to alfadriver :

It's like you are actively trying to make it something it's not. Really. Why? Are you that unhappy?

When you work around things that can kill you and you do stupid things, you can die. How is that saying space travel is stupid? 

Please, I'd really like to know how you jumped to that conclusion off what was written. You really had to stretch that one. 

Here's the words you typed:

 I'm seeing people say that people do stupid things and people die. That is what happens in high risk high reward careers, which is what this is. 

So who is doing the stupid things and people die?  And when you say that it happens in high risk/reward careers- is it stupid things that happen?  And the last sentence, I assume space travel is high risk/reward.  

I'm just asking for clarification.  It sure doesn't seem that what you typed is what you meant.

bear in mind, I did ask what you were trying to get at.

I think the answer to that one is really simple and obvious.  One employee chose to climb on top of a load of materials in a moving vehicle and died, and his coworkers allowed it. I guarantee management never told anyone to do that. 
 

That one doesn't look like the employers fault. It looks pretty stupid to me. 
 

 

But that's not what happens in space flight.  If someone does something stupid, like think that rocket seals will be fine at 0C when they are only certified to 20C and up, and there is strong evidence that seal integrity goes down a lot at 15C; and then an entire rocket explodes, killing all of the passengers- that's not the same as someone climbing a mountain of boxes, falling, and dying.

In reply to alfadriver :

As a matter of fact, yes it does. If someone dies, it just happens. No one can bring them back. 
 

There is an investigation, and recommended changes, and new protocols that are introduced. Those things may or may not have happened- the article doesn't say. But the dead guy is just dead. 
 

And yes, high risk jobs include higher rewards, and sometimes people die. Ford has a solid safety record, but it has happened at Ford too. 

alfadriver said:

SV reX said:

alfadriver said:

bobzilla said:

In reply to alfadriver :

It's like you are actively trying to make it something it's not. Really. Why? Are you that unhappy?

When you work around things that can kill you and you do stupid things, you can die. How is that saying space travel is stupid? 

Please, I'd really like to know how you jumped to that conclusion off what was written. You really had to stretch that one. 

Here's the words you typed:

 I'm seeing people say that people do stupid things and people die. That is what happens in high risk high reward careers, which is what this is. 

So who is doing the stupid things and people die?  And when you say that it happens in high risk/reward careers- is it stupid things that happen?  And the last sentence, I assume space travel is high risk/reward.  

I'm just asking for clarification.  It sure doesn't seem that what you typed is what you meant.

bear in mind, I did ask what you were trying to get at.

I think the answer to that one is really simple and obvious.  One employee chose to climb on top of a load of materials in a moving vehicle and died, and his coworkers allowed it. I guarantee management never told anyone to do that. 
 

That one doesn't look like the employers fault. It looks pretty stupid to me. 
 

 

But that's not what happens in space flight.  If someone does something stupid, like think that rocket seals will be fine at 0C when they are only certified to 20C and up, and there is strong evidence that seal integrity goes down a lot at 15C; and then an entire rocket explodes, killing all of the passengers- that's not the same as someone climbing a mountain of boxes, falling, and dying.

 

But that is what THIS ARTICLE is about. That is EXACTLY what this article is about. A fairly new employee decided to ride on top of stacked insulation while another employee drove the truck. That is what happened. That is how this person died. Not in a rocket explosion. Not because of a gov't contractor or gov't agency pushing beyond their limits. One dude, did a dumb thing. Dumb thing killed him. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS IN LIFE. 

In reply to alfadriver :

What's your point?  No one died in space flight in the article. 
 

He fell off a pile of insulation in a truck. It was stupid. 

NickD said:

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Elon Musk has accomplished a lot with Space-X. He is also a bit of a nut.

But so was Henry Ford and Thomas Edison and Nichola Tesla.

Henry Ford and Thomas Edison founded companies and got rich. Nicola Tesla made a bunch of money for General Electric and was taken care of the rest of his life.

... and I get to own cheap, mass produced cars and use electricity in my house.

Minor nitpick, but I believe you mean Westinghouse. General Electric was, after all, the brainchild of Edison, formed through the 1892 merger of Edison General Electric Company and Thomson-Houston Electric Company. 

Yeah. Westinghouse. Tesla was George Westinghouse's protoge. He even had a room at the Westinghouse mansion at one time.

Edison was promoting DC when Westinghouse was selling AC. Somewhere around that time an elephant got electrocuted.

RevRico said:

In reply to alfadriver :

We already have communication basically figured out. Quantum entanglement has been proven to work and be doable by us with current tech. Which means faster than light communication is a thing now. Expensive, energy consuming, but it's crossed from science fiction to science fact.  All we really need to do is scale it up from a few bits at a time, which is being actively worked on by a few different teams around the world.

I can't be the only person here, amongst all the certified engineers and nerds, who actually follows along with this kind of science instead of sitting back thinking that because someone 100 years ago said it wasn't possible that that was the end of the conversation. 100 years ago we could barely fly across the Atlantic Ocean. If we, as a people, prioritized life and exploration instead of war for a few years, we'd be very well on our way. 

Ohoho no! You can't use quantum entanglement to transmit information FTL. You can only use it to "transmit" (or more like "receive") uncontrollable random garbage FTL. If anyone ever finds a way to transmit information FTL, it could be used to break causality, which 1) suggests that it's impossible and 2) would probably not be healthy for the whole spacey-timey thing even if it was possible...

Edit: Currently moving any object or information FTL flies in the face of all the known laws of physics. Quantum entanglement seems to happen instantly (or at least 10000c) and nobody knows how, but it's impossible to control the information being sent through it. You just get matching random values on each end from some unknown property of the universe.

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

The Chicxulub impact caused the extinction of 3/4 of the animal and plant species on the Earth.  Humanity is not going to survive that.

It didn't kill all those things by blowing them up, and many smaller animals survived including some human-sized ones. It would be totally survivable, and that's an issue we'd only need to face after failing at detection and/or deflection:

https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/could-modern-humans-survive-an-asteroid-impact-like-what-killed-the-dinosaurs/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2022/02/01/humanity-could-survive-a-planet-killer-asteroid-a-new-study-says/

Pretty sure we never heard anything about the Russian cosmonauts who didn't make it.

Just Yuri.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

You absolutely can use it to transmit binary data. And for right now, I'm calling it binary data at the most explicit use of the word binary, a 1 or a 0. Similar to, yet also opposite of, controlling the spin of qubits in quantum computers. 

Information, in its purist form, does not conform to the flawed theory of relativity, because information isn't matter.

Much like we can, and have, teleported atoms across distances. With large amounts of energy and data storage. 

And before you get all ansy and want me to go on an in depth, way above my pay grade, explanation of why I think relativity is flawed, keep in mind it is absolutely useless at a quantum scale, which is why we haven't had a unification theory that's actually held water yet. And remember that information is not matter, so does not need to conform to material standards. 

I want the Barbados gameboy back, he was a lot more fun than the Canadian one.

In reply to RevRico :

The saying about FTL phenomena is "Relativity, causality, superliminality, pick two."

So yes if you think relativity is violable then FTL travel/comms may be possible. But you can't transmit information through quantum entanglement itself, the actual data is sent through a classical channel that travels at light speed or less, the practical use of the quantum channel is as an encryption system. So you'd still need another FTL channel to replace the quantum channel since nobody has found a way to control it.

But let's say you do have an FTL comms device that communicates at the speed of quantum entanglement. You could then set up an experiment between two spacecraft traveling at different speeds/directions such that messages are received slightly before they're sent. You could then rig up a chat system where a keyword triggers a bomb on each craft destroying it. A participant could then blow up their chat partner, quoting a message the partner didn't have a chance to finish typing yet, killing them before they had a chance to send the quoted message.

Edit: Some relevant links:

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/quantum-entanglement-faster-than-light/

https://www.askamathematician.com/2012/07/q-how-does-instantaneous-communication-violate-causality/

Well THIS has taken a turn....

Beer Baron said:

bobzilla said:

He's rich so he must be evil. People only get rich by being evil. Did you not get the memo?

Money and power do not automatically make someone more evil. But money and power absolutely increase someone's capacity to do evil, and give greater tools to avoid consequences of their actions.

It is absolutely reasonable to put increased scrutiny on the practices of such people and to question any "hero" or "savior" narratives surrounding them.

Bingo.

T Swift is a billionaire and she isn't evil.  She actually does a lot of philanthropic stuff.

However, I'm still waiting on Musk to donate any money to fight world hunger as he said he would.

RevRico said:

Beer Baron said:

bobzilla said:

He's rich so he must be evil. People only get rich by being evil. Did you not get the memo?

Money and power do not automatically make someone more evil. But money and power absolutely increase someone's capacity to do evil, and give greater tools to avoid consequences of their actions.

It is absolutely reasonable to put increased scrutiny on the practices of such people and to question any "hero" or "savior" narratives surrounding them.

2600 billionaires on the planet, complaining only about the ones that are public spectacles already and "how terrible they are" while also ignoring the ones that are truly evil, looking at you House of Saud and the Bush family (top of the head examples), is just emotional, reactionary drivel to news outlets. It's not providing anything to anyone, except maybe some warm fuzzies because you "stood up to the man". 

But no, this is 2023, stupid person knowingly played a stupid game and got their stupid prize, it's clearly the fault of one of the owners of the company who probably never even met the guy, and certainly didn't tell him to do it anyway. 

Personal safety, much like personnel feelings, personal triggers, anything else with the adjective "personal" in front of it is on *gasp* the person themselves. 

If I wear street shoes in a restaurant kitchen, slip, fall, and crack my head open, that's on ME for ignoring kitchen safety and not wearing proper shoes. Exactly the same as if I'm riding in the back of a truck trying to hand secure a load because I couldn't be bothered to find a strap, and I fly out and die, that's on me. 

Not announcing the death may be on the company, but there's a HELL of a lot of workplace deaths and accidents that NEVER make the news across all industries, because 1 out of what 7.5 billion? really isn't that big of a deal.

I disagree. 

If you are working in your own kitchen and slip, fall, and crack your head open its on you.  If you are working in a commercial site, the owner is going to get fined as well as having to pay death benefits (which, sidenote, they won't cause you failed to wear properly mandated safety gear.)

If you die doing something for yourself. Ok.  If you die doing something for a company, it has ripples.

Personal or not.

Mr_Asa said:

Beer Baron said:

bobzilla said:

He's rich so he must be evil. People only get rich by being evil. Did you not get the memo?

Money and power do not automatically make someone more evil. But money and power absolutely increase someone's capacity to do evil, and give greater tools to avoid consequences of their actions.

It is absolutely reasonable to put increased scrutiny on the practices of such people and to question any "hero" or "savior" narratives surrounding them.

Bingo.

T Swift is a billionaire and she isn't evil.  She actually does a lot of philanthropic stuff.

However, I'm still waiting on Musk to donate any money to fight world hunger as he said he would.

Have you heard the torture that she subjects the world to? I would definitely challenge that evil thing... 

Mr_Asa said:

RevRico said:

Beer Baron said:

bobzilla said:

He's rich so he must be evil. People only get rich by being evil. Did you not get the memo?

Money and power do not automatically make someone more evil. But money and power absolutely increase someone's capacity to do evil, and give greater tools to avoid consequences of their actions.

It is absolutely reasonable to put increased scrutiny on the practices of such people and to question any "hero" or "savior" narratives surrounding them.

2600 billionaires on the planet, complaining only about the ones that are public spectacles already and "how terrible they are" while also ignoring the ones that are truly evil, looking at you House of Saud and the Bush family (top of the head examples), is just emotional, reactionary drivel to news outlets. It's not providing anything to anyone, except maybe some warm fuzzies because you "stood up to the man". 

But no, this is 2023, stupid person knowingly played a stupid game and got their stupid prize, it's clearly the fault of one of the owners of the company who probably never even met the guy, and certainly didn't tell him to do it anyway. 

Personal safety, much like personnel feelings, personal triggers, anything else with the adjective "personal" in front of it is on *gasp* the person themselves. 

If I wear street shoes in a restaurant kitchen, slip, fall, and crack my head open, that's on ME for ignoring kitchen safety and not wearing proper shoes. Exactly the same as if I'm riding in the back of a truck trying to hand secure a load because I couldn't be bothered to find a strap, and I fly out and die, that's on me. 

Not announcing the death may be on the company, but there's a HELL of a lot of workplace deaths and accidents that NEVER make the news across all industries, because 1 out of what 7.5 billion? really isn't that big of a deal.

I disagree. 

If you are working in your own kitchen and slip, fall, and crack your head open its on you.  If you are working in a commercial site, the owner is going to get fined as well as having to pay death benefits (which, sidenote, they won't cause you failed to wear properly mandated safety gear.)

If you die doing something for yourself. Ok.  If you die doing something for a company, it has ripples.

Personal or not.

I agree in theory, but that's not exactly how it works in practice. 
 

If your company gives you proper training and provides a safe workplace, and you make a decision that is CONTRARY to the training you received, it's absolutely on you. The only thing the company has to do is prove they trained you, and they are not in violation of any OSHA rules. 
 

OSHA can't ever penalize an employee for their actions at all. It's outside their authority.  If you do something stupid contrary to your training and hurt yourself, you won't get fined.

If it happened at the workplace, you may still be eligible for Worker's Compensation insurance. That's on a case-by-case basis. 
 

If the company fails to train you about safety protocol, that's absolutely an OSHA violation. 

I have a friend who suffered a traumatic brain injury falling out of a Polaris.

I am driving a Polaris right now for work.  The Polaris has a safety device that won't allow it to go more than 15 mph if you are not wearing your seatbelt. Every time I get in it, someone has by-passed the seatbelts.  (They hook them up together, then sit on top of them).  That means someone is driving the machine faster than 15 mph unbelted. 
 

The company is VERY clear that seatbelts are required.  Training has been well documented.

If the person doing this ever has an accident like my friend did, the company IS NOT at fault. They will show the OSHA inspector their documentation, and it will be found that an employee disabled the safety device, and the company is NOT at fault.

Thats the way it works. 
 

(Side note: the only other person who has ever used this Polaris is the boss's son. I guess THAT'S a different issue...)

Hey, everybody! HEY EVERYBODY! I found the bullE36 M3 outrage thread of the week! Hey! Everyone. Look! Look!

bobzilla said:

Mr_Asa said:

T Swift is a billionaire and she isn't evil.  She actually does a lot of philanthropic stuff.

Have you heard the torture that she subjects the world to? I would definitely challenge that evil thing... 

She's leading the charge against Ticketmaster. I'd be willing to give respect to Nickelback if they did that.

In reply to Beer Baron :

SV reX said:

In reply to alfadriver :

What's your point?  No one died in space flight in the article. 
 

He fell off a pile of insulation in a truck. It was stupid. 

So we have some hints that Elon doesn't like safety colors, right?  We also saw that decisions were made on a previous flight that completely destroyed the launching pad- which could have killed someone on the ground, and would have killed anyone who was in the rocket.  And how in the world did someone get approval to climb on top of a pile of insulation???  Where I worked, that would not have been allowed to even happen.  Sure, it was stupid, but at the same time, a responsible person probably had a chance to not let it even happen.

Why can't we question the integrity of the decisions that management make at SpaceX?  THAT is the larger point that I read Gameboy making.  And people here think that we can't question that because Musk is so rich, any time we question his ventures, it's somehow jealousy that he's so rich.