News
Elon Musk’s Tesla ‘Alien Dreadnought’ factory is coming to form–just not where critics expect it
There are many aspects of the Tesla ecosystem and Elon Musk’s past forecasts that critics love to attack. Among the most notable of these is the CEO’s vision of an “Alien Dreadnought” factory, an electric car production facility that is so automated, it resembles the extraterrestrial machines depicted in pop culture. Contrary to what critics today would say, Tesla’s hyper-automated factory is actually coming to form — it’s just not where it was initially expected to be.
Elon Musk’s Alien Dreadnought concept was initially intended for the production of the Model 3. Perhaps this is the reason why Musk originally announced an incredibly aggressive timeframe for the all-electric sedan’s ramp. Those who have followed the Tesla story over the past few years would know that the dreadnought did not come to pass. As issues mounted and delays became more prominent in the Model 3 ramp, Tesla and Elon Musk were forced to abandon the idea and instead adopt a manufacturing system that uses machines and people.
The Fremont factory continues to function in this manner until today. Just recently, Tesla critics were discussing how much Tesla is failing since it still maintains its sprung structure-based GF4 line. Others mocked the fact that some Model Y were getting accessories such as floormats installed on the grounds of the Fremont factory. While some criticism is warranted considering that Elon Musk’s Alien Dreadnought factory is yet to pass in its main vehicle plant, one thing is conveniently forgotten by critics: the Fremont factory is not the only Tesla facility that’s producing vehicles today.
Over in China, Tesla’s Gigafactory Shanghai is now back to full operations. And true to its reputation, the facility’s buildout continues to be insanely quick. The production of the Made-in-China Model 3 is already ongoing, with recent reports stating that around 3,000 units of the all-electric sedan are being manufactured every week. The construction of the Phase 2 zone, widely considered to be a facility intended for Model Y production, is also continuing at a rapid pace. Based on the way Gigafactory Shanghai is designed and the way that it’s ramping, it appears that the facility is well on its way towards becoming the first of Elon Musk’s Alien Dreadnought factories.
One thing that may be worth considering is the fact that the Fremont factory was not designed by Tesla. The California-based car factory’s history dates as far back as 1962, when it operated as the General Motors Fremont Assembly site until 1982, when it was closed. The plant was reopened in 1984 as the New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI) plant, a joint venture between Toyota and General Motors, where it continued to produce vehicles until 2010. Tesla later bought the factory to produce the Model S sedan, a decision that was panned by critics then as an unnecessary expense.
With this in mind, it could be said that Tesla was not able to start with a blank canvas for its electric car production activities in the Fremont factory. The facility was constructed with conventional car making in mind, and Tesla essentially had to adapt its processes to the factory’s layout. Elon Musk’s admitted hubris aside, it would be quite a challenging endeavor to convert an automotive factory that was initially opened in 1962 into a hyper-automated, futuristic electric vehicle manufacturing machine. These challenges do not exist in Gigafactory Shanghai.
For its China-based site, Tesla was able to design a factory that’s optimized from the ground up for EV production. A look at the activities in the Phase 1 building would show that the site has notable similarities with the Fremont factory’s “tent-based” GA4 line, with its straightforward production process and its easy access to supply trucks. In a way, Gigafactory Shanghai’s Phase 1 zone is GA4 on steroids, and it seems to be working very well so far. With Gigafactory 3 now running, and with the facility’s Model Y production site coming to form, Tesla now has another opportunity to pursue Elon Musk’s Alien Dreadnought idea. But this time around, the company will be attempting the concept from a blank slate. And that might make all the difference.
The signs are already there. Recent drone flyovers in the Gigafactory Shanghai site show deep excavations connected to the Phase 1 building’s stamping area. Tesla has not revealed that the area is intended for, though speculations among the electric car community suggest that the location may host the company’s giant casting machine, which is designed to make vehicles easier to produce.
Elon Musk and Tesla have teased that the massive casting machine will be used for the Model Y, but the company may be looking to adopt such a technique for the Made-in-China Model 3 as well. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Considering that it’s working with a blank canvas in Gigafactory Shanghai, Tesla can explore and develop automated vehicle production processes that would make the facility deserving of Musk’s Alien Dreadnought title.
Ultimately, it may not be too long before Tesla critics would have to swallow yet another bitter pill. Elon Musk’s Alien Dreadnought concept lives on, and while it may not be starting at the Fremont Factory as initially intended, there is very little that could stop the electric car maker from adopting the idea in facilities beyond Gigafactory Shanghai. Gigafactory Berlin will undoubtedly be incredibly automated as well, and there’s a good chance the Cybertruck Gigafactory will be too.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
