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 Model Y Standard stuns in new range test, besting its Premium siblings
Tesla’s newer vehicles have continued to meet or exceed their EPA estimates. This is a drastic change, as every 2018-2023 model year Tesla that Edmunds assessed did not meet its range estimates.
The Tesla Model Y Standard stunned in a new range test performed by automotive media outlet Edmunds, besting all of its Premium siblings that are more expensive and more luxurious in terms of features.
Testing showed the Model Y Standard exceeded its EPA-estimated range rating of 321 miles, as Edmunds said it is the “longest-range Model Y that we’ve ever put on our loop.” In the past, some vehicles have come up short in comparison with EPA ranges; for example, the Model Y’s previous generation vehicle had an EPA-estimated range of 330 miles, but only drove 310.
Additionally, the Launch Series Model Y, the first configuration to be built in the “Juniper” program, landed perfectly on the EPA’s range estimates at 327 miles.
It was also more efficient than Premium offerings, as it utilized just 22.8 kWh to go 100 miles. The Launch Series used 26.8 kWh to travel the same distance.
It is tested using Edmunds’ traditional EV range testing procedure, which follows a strict route of 60 percent city and 40 percent highway driving. The average speed throughout the trip is 40 MPH, and the car is required to stay within 5 MPH of all posted speed limits.
Each car is also put in its most efficient drive setting, and the climate is kept on auto at 72 degrees.
“All of this most accurately represents the real-world driving that owners do day to day,” the publication says.
With this procedure, testing is as consistent as it can get. Of course, there are other factors, like temperature and traffic density. However, one thing is important to note: Tesla’s newer vehicles have continued to meet or exceed their EPA estimates. This is a drastic change, as every 2018-2023 model year Tesla that Edmunds assessed did not meet its range estimates.
Tesla Model Y Standard vs. Tesla Model Y Premium
Tesla’s two Model Y levels both offer a great option for whichever fits your budget. However, when you sit in both cars, you will notice distinct differences between them.
The Premium definitely has a more luxurious feel, while the Standard is stripped of many of the more premium features, like Vegan Leather Interior, acoustic-lined glass, and a better sound system.
You can read our full review of the Model Y Standard below:
Tesla Model Y Standard Full Review: Is it worth the lower price?
News
Xpeng CEO: Tesla FSD 14.2 has developed “near-Level 4” performance
While acknowledging that imperfections remain, the Xpeng CEO said FSD’s current iteration significantly surpasses last year’s capabilities.
Xpeng CEO He Xiaopeng has offered fresh praise for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system after revisiting Silicon Valley more than a year after his first hands-on experience.
Following extended test drives of Tesla vehicles running the latest FSD software, He stated that the system has made major strides, reinforcing his view that Tesla’s approach to autonomy is indeed the proper path towards autonomy.
Tesla FSD closing in on Level 4 driving
During his visit, He test-drove a Tesla equipped with FSD V14.2. He also rode in a Tesla Robotaxi. Over roughly five hours of driving across Silicon Valley and San Francisco, He said both vehicles delivered consistent and reassuring performance, a notable improvement from his experience a year earlier.
According to He, Tesla’s FSD has evolved from a smooth Level 2 advanced driver assistance system into what he described as a “near-Level 4” experience in terms of capabilities. While acknowledging that imperfections remain, the Xpeng CEO said FSD’s current iteration significantly surpasses last year’s capabilities. He also reiterated his belief that Tesla’s strategy of using the same autonomous software and hardware architecture across private vehicles and robotaxis is the right long-term approach, allowing users to bypass intermediate autonomy stages and move closer to Level 4 functionality.
He previously tested Tesla’s FSD V12.3.6 and Waymo vehicles in California in mid-2024, noting at the time that Waymo performed better in dense urban environments like San Francisco, while Tesla excelled in Silicon Valley and on highways.
Xpeng’s ambitious autonomy roadmap and internal challenge
The Silicon Valley visit also served as a benchmark for Xpeng’s own autonomy ambitions. He stated that Xpeng is looking to improve its VLA autonomous driving system to match the performance of Tesla’s FSD V14.2 within China by August 30, 2026. Xpeng is poised to release its VLA 2.0 smart driving software next quarter, though He cautioned that the initial version will not be able to match FSD V14.2’s capabilities, as noted in a CNEV Post report.
He also added a personal twist to the goal, publicly challenging Xpeng’s autonomous driving team. If the performance target is met by the 2026 deadline, the CEO stated that he will approve the creation of a Chinese-style cafeteria for Xpeng’s Silicon Valley team. If not, Liu Xianming, head of Xpeng’s autonomous driving unit, has pledged to run naked across the Golden Gate Bridge, He noted.
News
Another Tesla Model 3 variant sold out for January 2026 in China
A look at Tesla China’s order page shows that new Model 3 LR RWD orders now have an estimated delivery date of February 2026.
Another Tesla Model 3 variant in China appears to have sold out for January 2026, with the vehicle now showing an estimated delivery date of February 2026 for new orders. This bodes well for the all-electric sedan, which has maintained notable sales despite more affordable rivals like the Xiaomi SU7 and its crossover sibling, the Model Y.
Model 3 LR RWD joins February 2026 queue
A look at Tesla China’s order page for the all-electric sedan shows that new Model 3 Long Range Rear Wheel Drive orders now have an estimated delivery date of February 2026. Priced from RMB 259,500 ($36,810), the LR RWD sits as the second-lowest-priced trim in Tesla China’s four-variant Model 3 lineup. The move follows a similar delivery timeframe for the Model 3 Performance, which remains the most expensive option for the vehicle, as noted in a CNEV Post report.
The estimated delivery dates of the two remaining Model 3 variants remain unchanged for now. The base RWD version, starting at RMB 235,500, and the LR AWD variant, priced from RMB 285,500, both continue to list estimated delivery times of 4-6 weeks. Tesla China, for its part, has continued to list in-stock Model 3 vehicles and is actively encouraging buyers to select inventory units for delivery before the end of the year.
Model Y delays and policy shifts
Delivery timelines for the Model Y in China are also stretching into 2026. All customized Model Y variants now show February 2026 as their estimated delivery date, except for the entry-level version, which still lists January 2026. Tesla has been urging customers since November to prioritize purchasing inventory vehicles, a push aimed at maximizing year-end deliveries.
Timing matters for Chinese buyers due to upcoming changes in government incentives. China’s new energy vehicle purchase tax exemption will be scaled back in 2026, which means customers who take delivery next year could face higher tax costs compared to those who are able to receive vehicles before the end of the year.
As per data from the China Passenger Car Association, Tesla recorded retail sales of 73,145 vehicles in November, down 0.47% year over year. From January through November, Tesla’s retail sales in China totaled 531,855 units, a 7.37% year-over-year drop.
Tesla Model Y Standard stuns in new range test, besting its Premium siblings
Xpeng CEO: Tesla FSD 14.2 has developed “near-Level 4” performance
