The bottom line is this: if your accelerated processes are causing more workers to get injured, then you need to slow down. You must not churn out a second stage every 2.5 days if it means more injuries per worker.
Your argument is that these workers are doing more dangerous tasks more often and therefore that raises the injury rate, right? Well then they should be doing fewer dangerous tasks, and less often, then.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I never said otherwise. I just said that comparing the injury rate to the existing space industry wasn't accurate.

If accidents are happening because they are moving to fast they should of course address that.

They'll still have more accidents than the regular space industry because they are on incomparable scales.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Fair enough. A quick Google tells me the rate in the automotive industry is 6.3 per 100, which is close to SpaceX at 5.9 per 100. Might be more comparable to be fair.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

That might be a closer comparison ya.

Both work with large objects at large scale.

Edit: And just because SpaceX is lower doesn't mean it's fine. There's clearly room for large improvement, especially if injuries are due to moving too fast. I'd also intuitively expect higher numbers in automotive as things are larger scale (millions) and faster.