News
SpaceX’s BFR factory abuzz with work activity and giant rocket tooling
A large temporary SpaceX facility intended for initial Mars rocket fabrication was spied abuzz with activity as employees work to assemble massive carbon composite tooling.
Hours after SpaceX CEO Elon Musk revealed the first photos of tooling for the manufacture of BFR, Teslarati photographer Pauline Acalin sped down to Port of San Pedro to survey a large dockside tent the company was constructing as of December 2017. Now complete, the temporary facility appears to be exploding with SpaceX activity as the company surges ahead with plans to assemble the first Mars rocket and spaceship prototypes – rocket-powered hops could begin as soon as early next year, with orbital launches following about a year after that.
@SpaceX showing off the main body tool for the BFR 🤩🤩🤩https://t.co/IvvN7z9kx5 pic.twitter.com/GqXssPJhqG
— Ascent Aerospace (@AscentAerospace) April 9, 2018
Per a number of related discoveries, the tooling pictured in Musk’s teaser is almost certainly located in the same tent pictured above. Of particular note, a source involved in the work has confirmed that SpaceX is using a new supplier for the custom tooling needed to manufacture BFR. The source’s comments were confirmed to be accurate minutes later in photos taken by Teslarati’s senior SpaceX stalker that peg Ascent Aerospace Coast Composites as the tooling manufacturer. As if to dispatch any lingering doubt, Ascent Aerospace appears to have also independently confirmed its involvement through a rare post on social media.
Based on Pauline Acalin’s photos of the previously unexplored SpaceX facility, the company has since filled the tent with a huge amount of hardware, and still more BFR tooling appears to be momentarily stored outside, brandishing the Ascent Aerospace name and logo. These additional components will likely be used in the manufacture of the less cylindrical segments of SpaceX’s Mars spaceship, among other possible uses. In essence, SpaceX will need to build monolithic carbon composite structures that can readily survive extreme temperatures, pressure differentials, supercool rocket propellant, significant G-loading, and much more. To a much lesser extent, this type of aerospace construction is already done on a large scale – Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner uses a significant amount of carbon composite in its fuselage and is around 6 meters in diameter to BFR/BFS’ 9m. As a beneficial consequence of such significant commercial interest in massive carbon composite structures, markets have grown to support the existence of a thriving niche of composite innovation and tooling production, maturing the technology and making the task far easier for SpaceX compared to developing tooling and processes from a blank sheet.
-
- SpaceX appears to be hard at work at a temporary tent believed to house initial BFR manufacturing facilities. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- SpaceX’s first major BFR and BFS fabrication tooling, likely being stored temporarily in a tent at Port of San Pedro. Note the tent framework at the top. (Elon Musk)
-
- It’s understood that SpaceX will eventually move this work to Berth 240 once more permanent facilities are constructed. (Pauline Acalin)
-
- Huge metal structures are being stored just outside a tent constructed for SpaceX’s initial BFR manufacturing. (Pauline Acalin)
Given the surprising level of activity at this BFR-focused facility, it is fair to conclude that SpaceX is wasting no time at all with the production of its first full-scale BFR prototypes. Altogether, the tent factory is gradually being filled to the brim with custom carbon composite tooling capable of fabricating Mars spaceship and booster structures, propellant tanks, delta winglets, and more. It’s no coincidence that this tent (and the prospective factory at Berth 240) were both located at Port of San Pedro – once completed, it should be comparatively easy to ship the massive components to SpaceX’s Texas or Florida facilities, both of which have been hinted as possible locations for BFR testing (and launches, eventually).
Follow us for live updates, behind-the-scenes sneak peeks, and a sea of beautiful photos from our East and West coast photographers.
Teslarati – Instagram – Twitter
Tom Cross – Twitter
Pauline Acalin – Twitter
Eric Ralph – Twitter
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
