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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> not complete things that are being done now at scale by many others...
So its kind of wrong to suggest that what they try to do is done by 'many' others at scale. That basically isn't the case.
SpaceX and RocketLab lab are really the only companies that really do these things. Companies like ULA, Arianespace are basically government entities with deep connection into old school military-industrial complexes with decades and decades of history.
And the launch rate of anybody accept maybe Soyuz and the Falcon 9 would be nowhere close to what Astra needed to be commercially successful.
So in reality, what Astra was claiming when they were raising money was literally unprecedented. They basically proposed mass manufacture and mass launch to decrees unit price, as if it was a car. This simply hasn't ever happened. SpaceX is now at a launch every couple days but they have 3 launch pads and re-usability.
So the claims they could achieve these things with the money they raised was quite far fetched. In reality, because their technical execution was so bad that they didn't even get to Step 1, building a reliable rocket that you could mass produce. They were launching very aggressively with rockets that didn't work and constantly evolved never finding any stability or consistence.
Because they couldn't make their rocket work, they stopped working on that rocket, and attempted to build a rocket that was 3-5x larger instead. And to do this program they realistically needed even more money.
> weird to see "we signed a big contract"
They never signed a big commercial contract outside of maybe their space engines. Their rockets were never reliable enough for anything but companies seeking a barging bin price with high risk or government launches designed for risky small launchers.
> and where does that money go?
I don't know anything about real estate. Practically speaking in rocket development, salary are the primary cost, followed buy tooling up factory. Given how many people they hired and much they seem to invest in their factory, its not really a mystery where the money went.
Most people do not believe that Astra was trying to scam people. Their two founders seem really convinced by what they were selling. The Chief Engineer clearly loved the rocket he developed.
> Is there a Federal prosecution in the works here? someone bought NFT crypto ? company rivals pulling strings?
Very unlikely. This is just one more start up betting on concept that was fundamentally flawed in a market that never materialized.
This is where I really do think Astra is kind of scamy, their market projections were wild. Many other rocket companies were doing the same thing at the time. So this was really a thing that was all over the industry.
If you want to learn more:
> When the Heavens Went on Sale: The Misfits and Geniuses Racing to Put Space Within Reach
This is a great book about many rocket startups. The journalist was deeply embedded in Astra and tells lots of good stories. Its also about RocketLab, Planet and Firefly.
Combine that with:
> Liftoff: Elon Musk and the Desperate Early Days that Launched SpaceX
And you get a pretty good understanding of the space industry since early 2000s.
Their stock price has been very, very low for a while now. Meaning it would be incredibly hard for them to raise money. Their rocket development program was nowhere close to being finished or fully funded. And even if they could develop the rocket evidence of other such company shows that they need lots of additional money infusions even after the rocket is developed.
So the chances that they could get the rocket up and running were slim to non.
A few month ago they pulled lots of people from the rocket program to the space engines program, a move you would only do because you know you can't finish the rocket and the engines are the only thing that have even a minimal chance to make any money.
Frankly it was clear years ago that this company was going nowhere, they just raised a huge amount of money in the exact right moment. The chance that they would be viable was close to 0%. Anybody still believing in them in the last couple months was borderline delusional.
They are just the next on a list of rocket startups that will die in the next couple years.