# Talk:SpaceX

Using a memo written by a rival company of Space X as a source to describe the workplace culture at Space X seems pretty ridiculous. Especially since one of the articles used to source the information actually cites current and former Blue Origin employees alleging a sexist and unsafe work culture at Blue Origin. Citing current or former employees to describe the workplace culture at Space X would seem more reasonable. WhowinsIwins (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree! JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this article before. Has there been any discussion about SpaceX safety record? From Reuters:

Through interviews and government records, the news organization documented at least 600 injuries of SpaceX workers since 2014.
Many were serious or disabling. The records included reports of more than 100 workers suffering cuts or lacerations, 29 with broken bones or dislocations, 17 whose hands or fingers were “crushed,” and nine with head injuries, including one skull fracture, four concussions and one traumatic brain injury. The cases also included five burns, five electrocutions, eight accidents that led to amputations, 12 injuries involving multiple unspecified body parts, and seven workers with eye injuries. Others were relatively minor, including more than 170 reports of strains or sprains.
Current and former employees said such injuries reflect a chaotic workplace where often under-trained and overtired staff routinely skipped basic safety procedures as they raced to meet Musk’s aggressive deadlines for space missions. SpaceX, founded by Musk more than two decades ago, takes the stance that workers are responsible for protecting themselves, according to more than a dozen current and former employees, including a former senior executive.

Musk himself at times appeared cavalier about safety on visits to SpaceX sites: Four employees said he sometimes played with a novelty flamethrower and discouraged workers from wearing safety yellow because he dislikes bright colors.[1]
Other citations would be needed to balance such and I have no idea what the overall safety record is in the space industry. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty concerning. It should be noted though that Reuter's comparison with the space industry in general is a tad misleading because Starbase is under heavy construction. When compared to other heavy construction industries, the injury rate is slightly above average. To quote https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/17s4926/at_spacex_worker_injuries_soar_in_elon_musks_rush/:
----
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) injury statistics for 2022: https://www.bls.gov/iif/nonfatal-injuries-and-illnesses-tables/table-1-injury-and-illness-rates-by-industry-2022-national.htm
The 0.8 injuries per 100 workers for "Guided missile and space vehicle manufacturing" category is very low when comparing to other manufacturing industries that is comparable to what SpaceX is doing:
Average of all private industries: 2.7
Fabricated metal product manufacturing: 3.7
Machinery manufacturing: 2.8
Motor vehicle manufacturing: 5.9
Motor vehicle body and trailer manufacturing: 5.8
Motor vehicle parts manufacturing: 3.1
Aircraft manufacturing: 2.5
Ship and boat building: 5.6
----
- CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Reuters also has a very spotty record on reporting on Elon Musks companies. Even a number of false claims regarding Tesla recently. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Reuters is widely considered one of the most trustworthy and objective news sources. Criticism from Musk and his supporters should be taken with a grain of salt (WP:MANDY). Stonkaments (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
"Reuters is widely considered one of the most trustworthy and objective news sources"
You're funny. 2601:600:817F:B270:A0E9:D74D:83F5:E838 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney I reverted your changes changing the headquarters to Boca Chica. An Elon Musk tweet is not an official move of the headquarters. The evidence for that needs to come in the form of corporate documentation or reporting on such corporate documentation. It's fine to add that Elon Musk announced a plan to move the headquarters however, but wikipedia should only reflect that. Ergzay (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. There’s not much that needs to change other than the company letterhead. This is very much like the Tesla move a few years back. The new “headquarters” building is already operational, the old “headquarters” building will remain in operation. The main executives already shuttle between those locations. So I mean, we can wait for SpaceX to publish some sort of “corporate documentation” (which leaves plenty of room for ambiguity) but it’s just delaying the inevitable.  RickyCourtney (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so calling it "inevitable" isn't our choice to make. I'd also throw the general discussion on related topics at WP:TOOSOON. Give it some time to settle and things may become clearer. And as you say, there's nothing new about executives flying back and forth so that's not a point for or against the change. Ergzay (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
As an established editor, I'm well aware of the policies of CRYSTAL and TOOSOON. I still think we have all the confirmation we need. --  RickyCourtney (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't disagree that it is _likely_ that SpaceX will _soon_ make Boca Chica it's head quarters, to be clear. It just, right now, at this moment, is not yet. Ergzay (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Agree. Wait until it is official. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It's no secret (and easy to cite) that SpaceX was bailed out by Peter Thiel after its first three failures, and it seems relevant. I was wondering before I add it if there is some reason it's not in the article already. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Where do you find that written about? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
https://www.businessinsider.com/peter-thiel-elon-musk-relationship-contrarian-book-max-chafkin-2021-9?op=1
https://en.as.com/latest_news/who-are-the-biggest-investors-in-spacex-how-much-is-the-company-worth-today-n/
https://web.archive.org/web/20111104140811/http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=47 Pinkbeast (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
An equity investment from a VC firm is not a bailout and it's not personal either. You're welcome to add to the history section that SpaceX received a $20M investment from founders fund however. Ergzay (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

SpaceX was not founded by Elon musk in 2002, it was purchased. 2601:482:0:E400:D53F:4350:2EC4:4DCF (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Do you have any sources? IIRC SpaceX was founded by Elon after ISC charged him 8 million USD for a Dnepr rocket. Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 15:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Liar.
Unless, of course, you can prove it here :) CaptHorizon (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Why is this American Company using DMY dates over the American MDY dates. Per MOS:DATETIES the format should be MDY. My previous edit was reversed by User:Ita140188 and there wasn't any explanation given, other than a vague reference to MOS:DATEVAR, which doesn't apply since this is an American Company. Jojhutton (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the revert, but I think it would be best to reach a consensus here before changing the format which has been the same since the beginning of this article. My comment was not a vague reference, it was a link to the relevant guideline, which states that in general articles should keep the original datetime format. There may be a reason to change it according to the connection to the US, but again, I think we should have consensus here about it before making this big change. Ita140188 (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
I believe that the Manual of Style clearly supports the use of MDY date format since the article has a very strong tie to the United States. There isn't any confusion as to which format to use, which would need consensus to change, its fairly clear which one should be used depite the incorrect format being so prevelant for so long in the article. You invoked MOS:DATEVAR in your summary which says "If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on the topic's strong ties to a particular English-speaking country, or consensus on the article's talk page." It doesn't say, "and consensus", it says "or consensus", which means that if the article has a strong tie to a particular country, which in this case is the United States, then the article should use the predominant date format for that country, which is MDY. If we follow the MOS as written, its clear which format should be used, unless you have some other reason other than just gaining consesus to keep it DMY?--Jojhutton (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)