I was actually just about to comment that it's surprising how few accidents we've heard about from a facility like that.
Either they're doing an amazing job, or they have a great lid on it despite all that want to see them fail.
Yes, they are.
Starbase is notorious for high accident rates.
Drill down into the links from there. Or do a search. Or ask an LLM. I have a hard time finding any data that doesn't think they have high rates.
As to your second line, I submit that commenting on HN that "Starbase is notorious for high accident rates" carries with it an implicit offer to provide said notes and not just punt to Google when challenged.
(Source: https://www.bls.gov/charts/census-of-fatal-occupational-inju...)
Injury rate is 4.27 per 100. Which is under half the average value for active construction sites and 3x the average value for aerospace manufacturing facilities. Choose your comparator based on whether you want to praise or bash SpaceX.
Furthermore, you have gotten the burden of proof backwards. The default presumption is non-safety. The burden of proof is on insiders (who have all the access) to robustly demonstrate in a clear and convincing manner that things are safe, not on outsiders (who only have limited access) to demonstrate in a clear and convincing manner that things are dangerous.
So, please present your evidence that their injury or fatality rate is normal. Absence of evidence defaults to your claim it is safe being unsupported.
edit: codingdave comment has a more recent link that also determines 2023 and 2024 also had injury rates multiple times higher than industry average.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48214074
[1] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/spacex-m...
That's a sacrifice Elon is willing to make
blendergeek•48m ago