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 bear Michael Burry got blunt with his beliefs over the company’s valuation, which he called “ridiculously overvalued” in a newsletter to subscribers this past weekend.
“Tesla’s market capitalization is ridiculously overvalued today and has been for a good long time,” Burry, who was the inspiration for the movie The Big Short, and was portrayed by Christian Bale.
Burry went on to say, “As an aside, the Elon cult was all-in on electric cars until competition showed up, then all-in on autonomous driving until competition showed up, and now is all-in on robots — until competition shows up.”
Tesla bear Michael Burry ditches bet against $TSLA, says ‘media inflated’ the situation
For a long time, Burry has been skeptical of Tesla, its stock, and its CEO, Elon Musk, even placing a $530 million bet against shares several years ago. Eventually, Burry’s short position extended to other supporters of the company, including ARK Invest.
Tesla has long drawn skepticism from investors and more traditional analysts, who believe its valuation is overblown. However, the company is not traded as a traditional stock, something that other Wall Street firms have recognized.
While many believe the company has some serious pull as an automaker, an identity that helped it reach the valuation it has, Tesla has more than transformed into a robotics, AI, and self-driving play, pulling itself into the realm of some of the most recognizable stocks in tech.
Burry’s Scion Asset Management has put its money where its mouth is against Tesla stock on several occasions, but the firm has not yielded positive results, as shares have increased in value since 2020 by over 115 percent. The firm closed in May.
In 2020, it launched its short position, but by October 2021, it had ditched that position.
Tesla has had a tumultuous year on Wall Street, dipping significantly to around the $220 mark at one point. However, it rebounded significantly in September, climbing back up to the $400 region, as it currently trades at around $430.
It closed at $430.14 on Monday.
Tesla appears to be making a change to its exterior side repeater cameras, which are used for the company’s Full Self-Driving suite, and other features, like Sentry Mode.
The change appears to be a potential upgrade in preparation for the AI5 suite, which CEO Elon Musk said will be present on a handful of vehicles next year, but will not be widely implemented until 2027.
Currently, Tesla uses a Sony sensor lens with the model number IMX963, a 5-megapixel camera with better dynamic range and low-light performance over the past iteration in Hardware 3 vehicles. Cameras in HW3 cars were only 1.2 megapixels.
However, Tesla is looking to upgrade, it appears, as Tesla hacker greentheonly has spotted a new sensor model in its firmware code, with the model number IMX00N being explicitly mentioned:
Looks like Tesla is changing (upgrading?) cameras in (some?) new cars produced.
Where as HW4 to date used exterior cameras with IMX963, now they (might potentially) have something called IMX00N— green (@greentheonly) December 1, 2025
Sony has not announced any formal specifications for the IMX00N model, and although IMX963 has been used in AI4/HW4 vehicles, it only makes sense that Tesla would prepare to upgrade these external cameras once again in preparation for what it believes to be the second hardware iteration capable of fully autonomous self-driving.
Tesla has maintained that AI4/HW4 vehicles are capable of self-driving operation, but AI5 will likely help the company make significant strides, especially in terms of overall performance and data collection.
Tesla last updated its exterior cameras on its vehicles back in early 2023, as it transitioned to the 5-megapixel IMX963. It also added additional cameras to its vehicles in January with the new Model Y, which featured an additional lens on the front bumper to help with Full Self-Driving.
Tesla’s new self-driving computer (HW4): more cameras, radar, and more
Tesla launched the Model Y Standard as an attempt to offer affordable electric vehicles to consumers now that the $7,500 EV tax credit is gone. We were able to spend four days with the car, and it was more than enough time to determine whether or not the car was worth the $9,000 discount compared to the Premium All-Wheel-Drive configuration, which is what I drive daily.
The Model Y Standard was stripped of some of the features that are present in the Premium trims of the Model Y: no glass roof, a sound system with roughly half the speakers, fewer acoustic-lined glass windows, less storage, and less functionality from an interior standpoint.
However, there are some real advantages to purchasing a Standard Model Y, and there are a handful of situations where this car would be well-suited.
Do I think it is worth the lower price? Well, I’ll get to that later in this article.
Initial Thoughts
In my first impressions review of the Model Y Standard, I talked about the face-value differences between my Model Y Premium and the new, more affordable trim. You will first notice the lack of storage between the front two seats, as the cupholder and additional storage bin sliding doors are void. You still get the cupholders, but they are exposed, which isn’t a huge deal, but it definitely takes away from the sleek look the Premium trim offers.
Additionally, the textile seats replace those of the vegan leather that is available in the upper-level trims. I mentioned previously that I could take or leave the vegan leather for the textile seats, as they are easy to clean, quick drying, and hide oils from your skin much better than leather does.
However, there comes one big sacrifice that I have been spoiled by, as the textile seats are not ventilated, so say goodbye to cooling your keister in the Summertime.
The lack of a glass roof is something many owners might not even notice. However, I have been spoiled by the glass roof in my car, and I look out of it every time I’m in my car. It is one of my favorite features, without a doubt. While it would not be a dealbreaker for me, it would be something I would miss terribly.
Things I Noticed After Several Days
Cabin Noise
One of the biggest things I noticed after the first two days in the Model Y Standard is that the cabin is much louder than the Premium. This is because Tesla did not acoustically line all of the glass in the Standard configuration, as it did in the Premium. The side windows are not treated, just the windshields. Therefore, you notice the noise level in the cabin is louder than in the Premium.
If you had not been driving in a Premium trim for a few months, you might not notice it. However, it is something that is a big sacrifice when moving to a different trim level, especially one that is less premium than what you might currently drive.
I have always been so shocked at how amazingly quiet the Premium trim’s cabin is; my Model Y is extremely peaceful, even when I’m sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic, and people have modified mufflers and exhaust systems, tractor-trailers are going by, or crotchrockets are zipping by on the interstate.
This is a huge difference between the two cars, and it is something that is really hard to get used to. I know, first-world problems, right? But when you’re paying between $39,990 and $48,990 for a car, those little things truly do matter.
Stereo System Differences
Another thing I was very aware of was how weak the sound system is. I think if I had bought a Standard Model Y, I would have looked at having the speakers and subwoofers upgraded; I was almost disappointed in how much of a change it was between the two cars.
When I finally picked up my Model Y Premium on Friday (which had been detailed by the awesome team at Tesla Mechanicsburg), the first thing I did was crank up the volume and listen to some music. I really missed having a premium sound system.
Ride Quality
There are virtually no differences between the two cars in terms of ride quality. They are both extremely fun to drive, and the suspension in the Model Y Standard feels perhaps a little bit stiffer than the Premium. Regardless, I didn’t truly notice all that much of a change.
Driving this car around windy roads and tight turns was just as fun as my Model Y Premium. It was a blast to test out, and the slight change in feel was welcome. It’s always fun to drive new cars.
Performance
This is the first EV I’ve ever ridden in where I did not feel that awesome sensation of instant torque. It’s still a quick car, but it is missing that pep in its step that many of us have become accustomed to.
If you want to get someone’s true reaction to EV acceleration, let me just put it this way: This is not the car to do it in.
Some Little-Known Facts About the Model Y Standard
Most of us know that the Model Y Standard has a glass roof, but it is opaque, so even if you took out the headliner, you still would not see out of it. However, there is an interesting little tidbit from a Service perspective that does not make much sense.
If the Model Y glass roof cracks or is broken and needs to be replaced, Service is required to pull off the entire headliner and topside interior to access the glass. It cannot be replaced from the outside. In the Premium, because the glass is exposed, it is a much simpler process to replace the glass. This was an interesting thing I learned.
Additionally, the seat controls are only available on the center screen, which makes it difficult to adjust the seat if you are larger than the person who sat in the car previously. In order to adjust the seat, you’ll have to lean over the chair, access the controls from the screen, and adjust it manually before getting in.
Is the Tesla Model Y Standard Worth the Cheaper Price?
For an additional $9,000 to buy the Model Y Premium AWD, you would get a more capable powertrain, a quieter cabin, better performance, an upgraded interior, more storage, a better sound system, and more luxury features.
To me, the Standard is a car that seems extremely ideal for a teenager’s first vehicle (I got a $1,500 1998 VW Jetta K2 with 200,000 miles when I was 16), or a fleet vehicle. This would be the perfect car for salespeople to use: it does not have all the bells and whistles, it is efficient, and it is just what is needed to drive around to meetings.
For a personal car, it really depends on what you think you need. Admittedly, I’ve been spoiled by the Premium configuration, and personally, I wouldn’t go down to the Standard after owning a Premium trim.
Tesla bear gets blunt with beliefs over company valuation
Tesla is making a change to its exterior cameras with a potential upgrade
