News
SpaceX resurrects California Starship factory plan just one year after abandoning it
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tesla’s Cybercab has taken a significant step toward production with new technical details emerging from 2026 EPA certification documents.
The filings, which include a Certificate of Conformity issued in late May, provide the most comprehensive public look yet at the purpose-built autonomous vehicle designed for high-volume, low-cost ride-hailing operations.
At its core, the Cybercab is a front-wheel-drive electric vehicle powered by a single 163 kW (219 horsepower) AC permanent magnet motor. Despite its modest output, prioritizing efficiency and cost over neck-snapping acceleration, the vehicle boasts a strong power-to-weight ratio thanks to its lightweight curb weight of 3,113 pounds and a GVWR of 3,730 pounds.
It operates on a 326-volt electrical architecture with a compact ~48 kWh lithium-ion battery pack. The standout revelation is the vehicle’s exceptional efficiency, which Tesla has routinely flexed in the past.
EPA lab tests list an equivalent all-electric range of 418 miles combined and 375 miles on the highway. Tesla has previously targeted around 300 miles of real-world range, and analysts expect the final EPA-rated figure to land near 280-300 miles after adjustment factors.
At a certified 165 Wh/mi in earlier testing, the Cybercab is reportedly the most efficient EV ever produced, significantly outperforming vehicles like the Lucid Air Pure.
New information about @Tesla‘s Cybercab has been revealed in public EPA documents.
• Front-wheel drive
• Battery capacity: ~48 kWh
• 219 horsepower
• Curb weight: 3,113 lbs
• GVWR: 3,730 lbs
• Motor power: 163kW
• Voltage: 326vEquivalent All Electric Range is listed at… pic.twitter.com/D4gkJJTj25
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 15, 2026
This efficiency stems from deliberate design choices tailored for robotaxi duty. The two-seater features a highly aerodynamic shape, minimal weight, which is aided by structural battery integration of what are likely 4680 cells, and no steering wheel or pedals in its fully autonomous configuration.
For ride-hailing fleets, where average trips are short, and can be just five or ten miles, the smaller battery enables faster charging cycles, lower material costs, and reduced vehicle price, a key to Tesla’s goal of a ~$30,000 production cost.
Implications for Autonomous Mobility
These specs underscore Tesla’s strategy: maximize utilization and minimize operating expenses. A ~48 kWh pack could support dozens of short rides per charge, with energy costs potentially dropping below 20 cents per mile at scale. Front-wheel drive simplifies manufacturing and maintenance compared to dual-motor AWD setups in passenger Teslas.
The 219 hp motor provides ample performance for urban and highway speeds without excess, addressing questions about why such power is needed in a “slow” autonomous vehicle. Quick merges and hill climbing still matter for safety and passenger comfort.
Production has already begun at Giga Texas, with EPA certification clearing the path for U.S. deployment. While unsupervised Full Self-Driving remains the critical hurdle, these details paint a compelling picture of a vehicle engineered from the ground up for the robotaxi future: affordable to build, cheap to run, and capable of delivering strong range on a fraction of the battery capacity found in today’s EVs.
As Tesla ramps toward volume output, the Cybercab could reshape urban transportation economics.
Tesla Cybercab, the all-electric ride-hailing-geared vehicle void of a steering wheel and pedals, has achieved a significant regulatory milestone. The vehicle has officially secured an EPA Certificate of Conformity for the 2026 Cybercab, classifying it as a battery electric Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV).
This certification confirms full compliance with federal Clean Air Act emission standards, paving the way for legal sales and operation across the United States.
A Certificate of Conformity (CoC) is a critical document issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to vehicle manufacturers. It certifies that a specific class of vehicles meets all applicable federal emission requirements for the model year.
We have reported on several of them in the past, and it’s a good sign that a vehicle is close to being available to the public.
Every vehicle sold in the U.S. must carry this approval, which covers exhaust emissions, evaporative emissions, and refueling standards. For battery electric vehicles like the Cybercab, it verifies zero tailpipe emissions and compliance with stringent testing protocols. The certificate, issued and effective May 26, 2026, was part of the EPA’s recent bi-weekly upload, detailing the Cybercab’s evaporative/refueling family and exhaust compliance.
It also revealed some other very important information, as the Cybercab’s “Charge Depleting Range” was rated at just over 418 miles. This was for city driving, while the highway range depletion test revealed just over 375 miles of range:
Highway miles for Charge Depleting Range was just over 375 miles
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 15, 2026
This EPA approval is a foundational step for Tesla’s autonomous ambitions. While emission certification is standard for any new EV, it signals that the Cybercab is progressing through the full federal compliance process.
Tesla has already equipped prototypes with federal compliance stickers affirming adherence to safety, bumper, and theft-prevention standards via self-certification under FMVSS rules. This bypasses the traditional 2,500-vehicle exemption cap that previously constrained low-volume autonomous testing.
Production of the Cybercab ramped up at Giga Texas starting in early 2026, with volume targets aiming for hundreds of units per week and long-term ambitions of millions annually. The two-seater, steer-by-wire vehicle, lacking a steering wheel and pedals, features a sleek, minimalist design optimized for Robotaxi service.
Priced under $30,000 at unveiling, it promises operating costs as low as $0.20–$0.40 per mile once scaled. Tesla has routinely flexed it as one of the most efficient vehicles of all time.
Regulatory progress extends beyond the EPA. The NHTSA has streamlined approvals for control-free vehicles, benefiting the Cybercab. Tesla operates supervised and unsupervised Robotaxi services in Texas cities like Austin, Dallas, and Houston using its fleet. California recently updated rules for driverless operations, including enforcement mechanisms for violations. Additional state-by-state approvals will be needed for nationwide rollout.
This EPA green light reduces a key barrier, building confidence among regulators, partners, and investors.
It underscores Tesla’s strategy of designing the Cybercab from the ground up for full compliance rather than retrofitting existing platforms. Challenges remain in scaling unsupervised autonomy, mapping approvals, and public acceptance, but the certification marks tangible momentum toward transforming urban mobility.
With prototypes already testing on public roads and production accelerating, the Cybercab edges closer to redefining transportation. Tesla’s integrated approach—combining hardware simplicity, software prowess, and regulatory diligence—positions it uniquely in the robotaxi race.
SpaceX executed its first Falcon 9 launch since going public on June 15, a routine yet symbolically powerful Starlink mission from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California.
Liftoff of the Falcon 9 booster B1093, on its 14th flight, occurred at approximately 8:34 a.m. PDT from Space Launch Complex 4E (SLC-4E), deploying 24 Starlink V2 Mini Optimized satellites into low-Earth orbit.
The first stage successfully landed on the droneship “Of Course I Still Love You” in the Pacific Ocean, underscoring the company’s unmatched reusability track record.
Watch Falcon 9 launch 24 @Starlink satellites to orbit from California https://t.co/meDwb05qOE
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) June 15, 2026
This mission comes just three days after SpaceX’s historic IPO on June 12, which shattered records as the largest ever. The company raised $75 billion by pricing shares at $135, with trading under ticker SPCX on Nasdaq opening at $150 and closing at $160.95—a 19 percent gain—valuing SpaceX at over $2.1 trillion.
The launch highlights the seamless transition from private innovator to public powerhouse. SpaceX, founded in 2002, has revolutionized access to space with over 650 Falcon 9 flights and a massive Starlink constellation now serving millions globally.
As a public company, it faces new pressures: quarterly earnings, shareholder scrutiny, and expectations to accelerate Starship development for Mars ambitions and deeper NASA partnerships. Yet the market response signals strong confidence in its dominance, as launch costs are slashed by 95 percent, rapid satellite deployment, and a backlog of government and commercial contracts.
SpaceX maintains bold advertising push for Starlink, contrasting Tesla’s minimalistic approach
Analysts view today’s flight as business as usual, but it carries extra weight. With shares volatile in early trading days, successful operations reassure investors that core capabilities remain unaffected by public status.
SpaceX now operates under heightened transparency, potentially unlocking capital for ambitious goals like Starship orbital tests and global broadband expansion.
Challenges loom, including regulatory hurdles for megaconstellations, competition in reusable rockets, and orbital debris concerns. Nevertheless, this morning’s flawless execution reinforces SpaceX’s trajectory.
As Musk often notes, the company’s mission—to make humanity multiplanetary—now aligns with Wall Street’s growth demands. The stars, it seems, are aligning for both.
Tesla Cybercab specs revealed: range, curb weight, range ratings, and more
Tesla Cybercab snags huge regulatory green light that readies it for public roads
