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 CEO Elon Musk revealed today on the social media platform X that legacy automakers, such as Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis, do not want to license the company’s Full Self-Driving suite, at least not without a long list of their own terms.
“I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy,” Musk said on X. “When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless.”
I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy …
When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless. 🤷♂️
🦕 🦕
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 24, 2025
Musk made the remark in response to a note we wrote about earlier today from Melius Research, in which analyst Rob Wertheimer said, “Our point is not that Tesla is at risk, it’s that everybody else is,” in terms of autonomy and self-driving development.
Wertheimer believes there are hundreds of billions of dollars in value headed toward Tesla’s way because of its prowess with FSD.
A few years ago, Musk first remarked that Tesla was in early talks with one legacy automaker regarding licensing Full Self-Driving for its vehicles. Tesla never confirmed which company it was, but given Musk’s ongoing talks with Ford CEO Jim Farley at the time, it seemed the Detroit-based automaker was the likely suspect.
Tesla’s Elon Musk reiterates FSD licensing offer for other automakers
Ford has been perhaps the most aggressive legacy automaker in terms of its EV efforts, but it recently scaled back its electric offensive due to profitability issues and weak demand. It simply was not making enough vehicles, nor selling the volume needed to turn a profit.
Musk truly believes that many of the companies that turn their backs on FSD now will suffer in the future, especially considering the increased chance it could be a parallel to what has happened with EV efforts for many of these companies.
Unfortunately, they got started too late and are now playing catch-up with Tesla, XPeng, BYD, and the other dominating forces in EVs across the globe.
Tesla is backtracking on a strange adjustment it made to its in-car Navigation feature after numerous complaints from owners convinced the company to make a change.
Tesla’s in-car Navigation is catered to its vehicles, as it routes Supercharging stops and preps your vehicle for charging with preconditioning. It is also very intuitive, and features other things like weather radar and a detailed map outlining points of interest.
However, a recent change to the Navigation by Tesla did not go unnoticed, and owners were really upset about it.
For trips that required multiple Supercharger stops, Tesla decided to implement a naming change, which did not show the city or state of each charging stop. Instead, it just showed the business where the Supercharger was located, giving many owners an unwelcome surprise.
However, Tesla’s Director of Supercharging, Max de Zegher, admitted the update was a “big mistake on our end,” and made a change that rolled out within 24 hours:
The naming change should have happened at once, instead of in 2 sequential steps. That was a big miss on our end. We do listen to the community and we do course-correct fast. The accelerated fix rolled out last night. The Tesla App is updated and most in-car touchscreens should…
— Max (@MdeZegher) November 20, 2025
The lack of a name for the city where a Supercharging stop would be made caused some confusion for owners in the short term. Some drivers argued that it was more difficult to make stops at some familiar locations that were special to them. Others were not too keen on not knowing where they were going to be along their trip.
Tesla was quick to scramble to resolve this issue, and it did a great job of rolling it out in an expedited manner, as de Zegher said that most in-car touch screens would notice the fix within one day of the change being rolled out.
Additionally, there will be even more improvements in December, as Tesla plans to show the common name/amenity below the site name as well, which will give people a better idea of what to expect when they arrive at a Supercharger.
News
Dutch regulator RDW confirms Tesla FSD February 2026 target
The regulator emphasized that safety, not public pressure, will decide whether FSD receives authorization for use in Europe.
The Dutch vehicle authority RDW responded to Tesla’s recent updates about its efforts to bring Full Self-Driving (Supervised) in Europe, confirming that February 2026 remains the target month for Tesla to demonstrate regulatory compliance.
While acknowledging the tentative schedule with Tesla, the regulator emphasized that safety, not public pressure, will decide whether FSD receives authorization for use in Europe.
RDW confirms 2026 target, warns Feb 2026 timeline is not guaranteed
In its response, which was posted on its official website, the RDW clarified that it does not disclose details about ongoing manufacturer applications due to competitive sensitivity. However, the agency confirmed that both parties have agreed on a February 2026 window during which Tesla is expected to show that FSD (Supervised) can meet required safety and compliance standards. Whether Tesla can satisfy those conditions within the timeline “remains to be seen,” RDW added.
RDW also directly addressed Tesla’s social media request encouraging drivers to contact the regulator to express support. While thanking those who already reached out, RDW asked the public to stop contacting them, noting these messages burden customer-service resources and have no influence on the approval process.
“In the message on X, Tesla calls on Tesla drivers to thank the RDW and to express their enthusiasm about this planning to us by contacting us. We thank everyone who has already done so, and would like to ask everyone not to contact us about this. It takes up unnecessary time for our customer service. Moreover, this will have no influence on whether or not the planning is met,” the RDW wrote.
The RDW shares insights on EU approval requirements
The RDW further outlined how new technology enters the European market when no existing legislation directly covers it. Under EU Regulation 2018/858, a manufacturer may seek an exemption for unregulated features such as advanced driver assistance systems. The process requires a Member State, in this case the Netherlands, to submit a formal request to the European Commission on the manufacturer’s behalf.
Approval then moves to a committee vote. A majority in favor would grant EU-wide authorization, allowing the technology across all Member States. If the vote fails, the exemption is valid only within the Netherlands, and individual countries must decide whether to accept it independently.
Before any exemption request can be filed, Tesla must complete a comprehensive type-approval process with the RDW, including controlled on-road testing. Provided that FSD Supervised passes these regulatory evaluations, the exemption could be submitted for broader EU consideration.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk sends rivals dire warning about Full Self-Driving
Tesla backtracks on strange Nav feature after numerous complaints
