Connect with us

News

SpaceX resurrects California Starship factory plan just one year after abandoning it

Less than a year after SpaceX scrapped major plans for a Port of LA factory, the company is again in talks to build Starship hardware at the port. (Pauline Acalin)

Published

on

Just nine months after scrapping temporary Starship facilities built at a Los Angeles port, the company has unexpectedly reconsidered that decision, restarting talks to build a steel Starship factory in California.

In March 2018, nearly two years ago, the public first became aware of SpaceX’s plans to build a Starship factory in Port of Los Angeles. Begun while Starship was still known as BFR (Big Falcon Rocket) and designed to be built almost entirely out of carbon-fiber composites, the company’s first in-house effort to build its next-generation rocket began in an unassuming tent erected on port property around December 2017. Unintentionally foreshadowing the future of both Tesla Model 3 and SpaceX Starship production, that temporary tent was completed in just a month or two and officially began supporting BFR prototype production in April 2018.

In December 2018, CEO Elon Musk rebranded BFR as Starship and revealed that SpaceX would take the extraordinary step of redesigning the fully-reusable rocket to use stainless steel instead of carbon fiber. One year after SpaceX began building carbon fiber hardware, Musk moved quickly to make the radical move to steel permanent, literally scrapping its BFR prototype tent and abandoning its lease of a separate facility that was meant to host a more permanent composite Mars rocket factory in the near future. Now, almost exactly a year canceling its Port of LA factory, SpaceX has returned with plans to build and finish new port-based Starship production facilities just a few months from now.

Completed in September 2018, the closest SpaceX ever got to producing its 2017 BFR iteration was a large ring-like composite structure, also known as a barrel section. Measuring some 9m (30 ft) wide and 4-6m (12-20 ft) long, both 2016, 2017, and 2018 variants of SpaceX’s next-generation fully-reusable rocket would have been assembled from a number of similar components — all to be built out of carbon composites with giant mandrels (a bit like inverse molds).

Building giant rockets and the factories needed for production is no less expensive. (Pauline Acalin)
SpaceX’s BFR tent (right) had a flap open on September 18th, 2018, revealing the rocket’s first and only full-scale composite prototype. (SpaceX/Pauline Acalin)
SpaceX’s Port of LA-based BFR development tent ceased to exist after the company decided to scrap it and the entirety of its contents in March 2019. (Pauline Acalin/SpaceX)

While it’s more than likely that SpaceX could have managed the feat, building a reusable orbital spacecraft like Starship out of carbon fiber posed a vast array of challenges. When Musk revealed that SpaceX would move from carbon fiber to steel in December 2018, the CEO went into some detail to explain several of those challenges and why the major change was thus worth the substantial body of work it would force the company to scrap and redo from scratch.

The two biggest hurdles for BFR were quite simple. From a technical perspective, carbon fiber is dramatically less temperature-resistant than most metals (especially steel), meaning that despite it offering a much higher strength-to-weight ratio on paper, almost every inch of the spaceship and booster’s exposed surfaces would have to be insulated. For Starship, this would be exceptionally challenging given that the spacecraft must fundamentally be able to survive numerous orbital-velocity reentries with little to no refurbishment in between. While a steel Starship would still need a proper heat shield on its windward half, the other half of its steel hull could likely be almost entirely unshielded thanks to the fact that most steels remain structural sound at much higher temperatures.

Advertisement
-->
With a steel hull, Starship’s leeward (non-wind-facing) half can effectively be nude, saving (literal) tons of weight. (SpaceX)

Beyond the “delightfully counterintuitive” technical properties that could make a steel Starship as light or even lighter than the carbon composite alternative, Musk also noted that a huge motivator for the switch was the fact that the cutting-edge composites SpaceX would have to buy were incredibly expensive. In September 2019, Musk stated that composites would have cost some $130,000 per ton, whereas a ton of the stainless steel SpaceX is now using can be purchased for just $2500. In simpler terms, from a material cost perspective, steel Starships and Super Heavy boosters could cost an incredible 50 times less than their carbon composite twins.

Port Factory 2.0

For now, it’s unclear exactly what SpaceX foresees for Starship’s newly re-proposed Port of LA factory. The same primary constraint remains: there is still no affordable way to ship full-scale 9m-diameter Starship hardware by road. The most likely explanation for the resurrected interest in port facilities is that SpaceX still wants to keep some major aspects of Starship manufacturing within reach of California’s vast aerospace talent pool, as well as the company’s own California headquarters, situated just 20 or so miles from Port of LA.

Before SpaceX vacated its prospective BFR factory at Port of LA Berth 240, it had performed a small amount of earthmoving and foundation work. (Pauline Acalin – November 2018)

At the same time, SpaceX probably has all the space it could possibly want at its Hawthorne, CA headquarters after a massive Triumph facility was recently vacated, meaning that any intentional expansion in Port of LA is probably motivated by the need to transport massive rocket parts from California to Texas and Florida. Daily Breeze also reports that “SpaceX would manufacture its…Starship spacecraft and…Super Heavy [booster] on the property” if it receives approval, seemingly implying interest in full-scale rocket production at its prospective port factory.

Regardless of whether SpaceX wants to build smaller Starship subcomponents (i.e. nose cones, header tanks, fins, plumbing, crew compartments, etc.) or complete spaceships and boosters, the company is seemingly far more eager to get port facilities in place, this time around. Specifically, SpaceX told a city council member that it wanted to get a Port of LA facility up and running just 90 days after it expressed new interest in the concept.

At SpaceX’s Boca Chica, Texas outpost, the company has used Sprung Structures to add 100,000+ square feet of enclosed factory space in just a month or two. (NASASpaceflight – bocachicagal)

To do so, SpaceX will copy the methods used to create both Tesla’s General Assembly 4 factory addition and its own massive Starship production space in South Texas, relying on Sprung Instant Structures to erect a massive semi-permanent tent or two in an extremely short period of time. Unfortunately, because of how abruptly SpaceX abandoned its Port of LA factory lease, the company will have to repeat the permitting and environmental review process from scratch, making it very unlikely that it will be able to begin construction within the next month or two.

Regardless, SpaceX certainly remains as agile as ever. Stay tuned for updates on this surprise resurgence of plans for a Port of LA Starship factory.

Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.

Advertisement
-->

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla Full Self-Driving warrants huge switch-up on essential company strategy

Published

on

tesla side repeater camera
(Credit: Tesla)

Tesla Full Self-Driving has warranted a huge switch-up on an essential company strategy as the automaker is hoping to increase the take rate of the ADAS suite.

Unlike other automotive companies, Tesla has long been an outlier, as it has famously ditched a traditional advertising strategy in favor of organic buzz, natural word-of-mouth through its production innovation, and utilizing CEO Elon Musk’s huge social media presence to push its products.

Tesla has taken the money that it would normally spend on advertising and utilized it for R&D purposes. For a long time, it yielded great results, and ironically, Tesla saw benefits from other EV makers running ads.

Tesla counters jab at lack of advertising with perfect response

However, in recent years, Tesla has decided to adjust this strategy, showing a need to expand beyond its core enthusiast base, which is large, but does not span over millions and millions as it would need to fend off global EV competitors, which have become more well-rounded and a better threat to the company.

In 2024 and 2025, Tesla started utilizing ads to spread knowledge about its products. This is continuing, as Full Self-Driving ads are now being spotted on social media platforms, most notably, X, which is owned by Musk:

Interestingly, Tesla’s strategy on FSD advertising is present in Musk’s new compensation package, as the eleventh tranche describes a goal of achieving 10 million active paid FSD subscriptions.

Full Self-Driving is truly Tesla’s primary focus moving forward, although it could be argued that it also has a special type of dedication toward its Optimus robot project. However, FSD will ultimately become the basis for the Robotaxi, which will enable autonomous ride-sharing across the globe as it is permitted in more locations.

Tesla has been adjusting its advertising strategy over the past couple of years, and it seems it is focused on more ways to spread awareness about its products. It will be interesting to see if the company will expand its spending even further, as it has yet to put on a commercial during live television.

We wouldn’t put it out of the question, at least not yet.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Model Y Standard: first impressions from a Premium owner

Published

on

Credit: TESLARATI

Tesla was nice enough to hook us up with the new Model Y “Standard” trim for a few days, and while we’ll be sure to fill you in on the full experience in the coming days, there are a lot of differences we noticed right off the bat, which make the ownership experience different from the “Premium” configuration level.

I purchased a Model Y Long Range All-Wheel-Drive back in August and took delivery just two weeks later. Through the first three months of owning my car, I’ve come to love so many things about the Tesla experience.

I traded my ICE vehicle for a Tesla Model Y: here’s how it went

However, I was interested in experiencing the affordable trim and seeing whether I would miss any of the voided features of the “Premium” Model Y.

Through the first 24 hours, here are my first impressions of the Model Y Standard as a Premium trim level owner:

Overall Aesthetic

The lack of a light bar is not something that is a dealbreaker. In fact, I would argue that the Model Y Standard’s more traditional headlight design is just as pleasing from an aesthetic standpoint.

The car is great looking from top to bottom; there are not a substantial number of differences besides the lack of a lightbar on both the front and the back of the car.

Overall, it is a very sleek vehicle, but the major changes are obviously with the interior.

Interior Changes

This is where the big differences are, and some of the things I’ve gotten used to in the Premium are not included. If I didn’t have a Premium Model Y already, I’m not sure I’d miss some of the things that are not present in the Standard trim, but I believe I’d get annoyed with it.

Storage

The Premium has a large storage compartment between the cupholders and the wireless charger, which is not present in the Standard trim. Instead, it is more like the Cybertruck, as there is a pass-through and floor storage.

I think that the pass-through is nice, but the additional storage is something I take advantage of, especially as someone who films Full Self-Driving videos, which requires hauling mounts, GoPros, and other accessories.

The sleekness of the Premium trim is also something I prefer; I really enjoy having the ability to close those compartments and cover the cupholders.

Obviously, this is a really trivial issue and not something that is substantially impactful from an ownership experience. If I weren’t already an owner, I am not sure I’d even have something to complain about.

Material Differences

The Premium trim seats are completely Vegan Leather, which I really do like, even as someone who doesn’t really love leather seats due to their temperature dependency.

The Standard trim features a Textile and Vegan hybrid, which has half of the seat a different material than the other.

The material is very similar to what I had in my previous car, a Bronco Sport. It was very durable, easy to clean, dried quickly, and hid a lot of things that leather does not, like oils from your skin, which constantly require attention to keep your interior looking fresh.

The wireless charger is also a different material, as the Premium features an Alcantara material on that. The Standard has a rubberized and textured backing, which looks good, too. They’re both more than suitable.

Other Missing Features

The Standard lacks a few minor things, most noticeably is the ambient lighting. The biggest change, however, and something I really miss, is the glass roof.

A lot of people told me that when I got my Model Y, I wouldn’t even notice the glass roof after a few weeks. That could not be further from the truth. I look out of it all the time, and it’s one of my family’s favorite parts of the car.

My Fiancè and I really love parking and watching Netflix when we pick food up, especially when it’s raining, because the glass roof gives such a great view.

We also loved it as Fall arrived, because it was great to look at the foliage.

Bigger Differences

There are also a handful of very noticeable differences from the overall cabin experience, especially with the sound system.

Much Weaker Sound System

The Model Y Standard has just 7 speakers and 1 amp, with no subwoofer. This is a significant step down from the 13-15 speakers in the Premium Long Range AWD Model Y, the 2 amps it comes with, and 1 subwoofer in the trunk.

I usually like to listen to Long Time by Boston to test out a sound system, and it was noticeably weaker in the Standard. It was missing a big portion of the umph that is provided by the Premium’s sound system.

Cabin Noise

It feels like the Cabin Noise is definitely more noticeable in the Standard, which is something I really love about my Model Y. It is able to dampen so much road noise from louder cars, and I don’t feel as if it is very quiet in the Standard.

This is perhaps the biggest make-or-break for me with this car. I truly have been spoiled by how quiet the cabin is in the Premium, and it’s due to the lack of acoustic-lined glass in the Standard.

I will be doing a more in-depth review of the Model Y Standard, especially with ride quality, later this week.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla takes a step towards removal of Robotaxi service’s safety drivers

Tesla watchers are speculating that the implementation of in-camera data sharing could be a step towards the removal of the Robotaxi service’s safety drivers.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla appears to be preparing for the eventual removal of its Robotaxi service’s safety drivers. 

This was hinted at in a recent de-compile of the Robotaxi App’s version 25.11.5, which was shared on social media platform X. 

In-cabin analytics

As per Tesla software tracker @Tesla_App_iOS, the latest update to the Robotaxi app featured several improvements. These include Live Screen Sharing, as well as a feature that would allow Tesla to access video and audio inside the vehicle. 

According to the software tracker, a new prompt has been added to the Robotaxi App that requests user consent for enhanced in-cabin data sharing, which comprise Cabin Camera Analytics and Sound Detection Analytics. Once accepted, Tesla would be able to retrieve video and audio data from the Robotaxi’s cabin. 

Video and audio sharing

A screenshot posted by the software tracker on X showed that Cabin Camera Analytics is used to improve the intelligence of features like request support. Tesla has not explained exactly how the feature will be implemented, though this might mean that the in-cabin camera may be used to view and analyze the status of passengers when remote agents are contacted.

Advertisement
-->

Sound Detection Analytics is expected to be used to improve the intelligence of features like siren recognition. This suggests that Robotaxis will always be actively listening for emergency vehicle sirens to improve how the system responds to them. Tesla, however, also maintained that data collected by Robotaxis will be anonymous. In-cabin data will not be linked to users unless they are needed for a safety event or a support request. 

Tesla watchers are speculating that the implementation of in-camera data sharing could be a step towards the removal of the Robotaxi service’s safety drivers. With Tesla able to access video and audio feeds from Robotaxis, after all, users can get assistance even if they are alone in the driverless vehicle. 

Continue Reading