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.
News
Tesla Insurance officially expands to new U.S. state
Tesla’s in-house Insurance program first launched back in late 2019, offering a new way to insure the vehicles that was potentially less expensive and could alleviate a lot of the issues people had with claims, as the company could assess and repair the damage itself.
Tesla Insurance has officially expanded to a new U.S. state, its thirteenth since its launch in 2019.
Tesla has confirmed that its in-house Insurance program has officially made its way to Florida, just two months after the company filed to update its Private Passenger Auto program in the state. It had tried to offer its insurance program to drivers in the state back in 2022, but its launch did not happen.
Instead, Tesla refiled the paperwork back in mid-October, which essentially was the move toward initiating the offering this month.
BREAKING: Tesla Insurance has just officially launched in Florida.
This is the first new state to receive @Tesla Insurance in more than 3 years. In total, Tesla insurance is now available in 13 U.S. states (map in thread below of all the states).
Tesla Insurance in Florida uses… pic.twitter.com/bDwh1IV6gD
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) December 17, 2025
Tesla’s in-house Insurance program first launched back in late 2019, offering a new way to insure the vehicles that was potentially less expensive and could alleviate a lot of the issues people had with claims, as the company could assess and repair the damage itself.
It has expanded to new states since 2019, but Florida presents a particularly interesting challenge for Tesla, as the company’s entry into the state is particularly noteworthy given its unique insurance landscape, characterized by high premiums due to frequent natural disasters, dense traffic, and a no-fault system.
Annual average premiums for Florida drivers hover around $4,000 per year, well above the national average. Tesla’s insurance program could disrupt this, especially for EV enthusiasts. The state’s growing EV adoption, fueled by incentives and infrastructure development, aligns perfectly with Tesla’s ecosystem.
Moreover, there are more ways to have cars repaired, and features like comprehensive coverage for battery damage and roadside assistance tailored to EVs address those common painpoints that owners have.
However, there are some challenges that still remain. Florida’s susceptibility to hurricanes raises questions about how Tesla will handle claims during disasters.
Looking ahead, Tesla’s expansion of its insurance program signals the company’s ambition to continue vertically integrating its services, including coverage of its vehicles. Reducing dependency on third-party insurers only makes things simpler for the company’s automotive division, as well as for its customers.
News
Tesla Full Self-Driving gets sparkling review from South Korean politician
“Having already ridden in an unmanned robotaxi, the novelty wasn’t as strong for me, but it drives just as well as most people do. It already feels like a completed technology, which gives me a lot to think about.”
Tesla Full Self-Driving got its first sparkling review from South Korean politician Lee So-young, a member of the country’s National Assembly, earlier this week.
Lee is a member of the Strategy and Finance Committee in South Korea and is a proponent of sustainable technologies and their applications in both residential and commercial settings. For the first time, Lee was able to utilize Tesla’s Full Self-Driving technology as it launched in the country in late November.
Her thoughts on the suite were complimentary to the suite, stating that “it drives just as well as most people do,” and that “it already feels like a completed technology.”
드디어 오늘, 서울에서 테슬라 FSD 체험 했습니다.
JiDal Papa님의 모델S 협찬에 힘입어^^ 파파님 정말 감사합니다.
국회 -> 망원시장 -> 홍익대 -> 국회 복귀 코스였고요.
이미 무인 로보택시를 타봐서 그런지 신기함은
덜했지만, 웬만한 사람만큼 운전을 잘하네요.이미 완성된 기술이라고… pic.twitter.com/8pAidHBpRG
— 이소영 국회의원 (Soyoung Lee) (@im_soyounglee) December 17, 2025
Her translated post says:
“Finally, today I got to experience Tesla FSD in Seoul. Thanks to the Model S sponsored by JiDal Papa^^, I’m truly grateful to Papa. The route was from the National Assembly -> Mangwon Market -> Hongik University -> back to the National Assembly. Having already ridden in an unmanned robotaxi, the novelty wasn’t as strong for me, but it drives just as well as most people do. It already feels like a completed technology, which gives me a lot to think about. Once it actually spreads into widespread use, I feel like our daily lives are going to change a lot. Even I, with my license gathering dust in a drawer, don’t see much reason to learn to drive a manual anymore.”
Tesla Full Self-Driving officially landed in South Korea in late November, with the initial launch being one of Tesla’s most recent, v14.1.4.
It marked the seventh country in which Tesla was able to enable the driver assistance suite, following the United States, Puerto Rico, Canada, China, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand.
It is important to see politicians and figures in power try new technologies, especially ones that are widely popular in other regions of the world and could potentially revolutionize how people travel globally.
News
Tesla dispels reports of ‘sales suspension’ in California
“This was a “consumer protection” order about the use of the term “Autopilot” in a case where not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.
Sales in California will continue uninterrupted.”
Tesla has dispelled reports that it is facing a thirty-day sales suspension in California after the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issued a penalty to the company after a judge ruled it “misled consumers about its driver-assistance technology.”
On Tuesday, Bloomberg reported that the California DMV was planning to adopt the penalty but decided to put it on ice for ninety days, giving Tesla an opportunity to “come into compliance.”
Tesla enters interesting situation with Full Self-Driving in California
Tesla responded to the report on Tuesday evening, after it came out, stating that this was a “consumer protection” order that was brought up over its use of the term “Autopilot.”
The company said “not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem,” yet a judge and the DMV determined it was, so they want to apply the penalty if Tesla doesn’t oblige.
However, Tesla said that its sales operations in California “will continue uninterrupted.”
It confirmed this in an X post on Tuesday night:
This was a “consumer protection” order about the use of the term “Autopilot” in a case where not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.
Sales in California will continue uninterrupted.
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) December 17, 2025
The report and the decision by the DMV and Judge involved sparked outrage from the Tesla community, who stated that it should do its best to get out of California.
One X post said California “didn’t deserve” what Tesla had done for it in terms of employment, engineering, and innovation.
Tesla has used Autopilot and Full Self-Driving for years, but it did add the term “(Supervised)” to the end of the FSD suite earlier this year, potentially aiming to protect itself from instances like this one.
This is the first primary dispute over the terminology of Full Self-Driving, but it has undergone some scrutiny at the federal level, as some government officials have claimed the suite has “deceptive” naming. Previous Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was vocally critical of the use of the name “Full Self-Driving,” as well as “Autopilot.”
Tesla Insurance officially expands to new U.S. state
Tesla Full Self-Driving gets sparkling review from South Korean politician
