News
SpaceX’s upgraded Starship factory begins to take shape in South Texas
After a few months of foundation work, SpaceX has begun assembling the first section of a vast new Starship manufacturing building that will eventually replace a series of tents also known as ‘sprung structures’.
SpaceX and its contractors began erecting those tents in late 2019 after a mostly successful series of tests involving Starhopper – a steel rocket built on an unprotected concrete lot – and shortly before a less successful attempt at testing the first truly Starship-esque prototype. Inside and around those new tents, SpaceX took steps to significantly upgrade its Starship production methods and assembly facilities, ultimately settling on a process that is still very familiar more than two years later.
Nonetheless, in typical SpaceX fashion, the company appears to have outgrown those tents and set its sights on constructing a brand new Starship manufacturing facility – traditional roof and all – that will likely replace most or all temporary Starbase structures in the near future.
As previously discussed on Teslarati, documents submitted to a Florida water management agency have already revealed plans for a similar East Coast Starship factory and shed light on what the first unofficially named ‘Starfactory’ might look like in Texas.
“According to RGV Aerial Photography, SpaceX…aims to replace all of Starbase’s tents with a single 300,000 square-foot (~28,000 square-meter) building that will be about 18 meters (60 ft) tall and likely measure around 800 feet (250m) long and 400 feet (120m) wide. Starbase’s tents are roughly the same height, but their tented roofs mean that only a fraction of that height can be used for ring work and only a fraction of the floor space for taller nose work.
In comparison, a 300,000 square-foot building would have almost two and half times as much covered floor space as Starbase’s three tents – all of which can theoretically be used for ring and nose section assembly. In fact, with a mostly flat 18-meter roof, SpaceX could feasibly expand most ‘stacks’ by a ring or two, which would reduce the number of sections (and thus stacking operations) needed to assemble a ship or booster.”
Teslarati.com – March 4th, 2022
-->A month and a half later, SpaceX (or its contractors) began raising the first steel beams of the new building and made significant progress in just a handful of days. The first vertical beam was erected on April 19th. Around 48 hours later, several roof beams measuring a good 200+ feet (60+ meters) wide were assembled out of smaller pieces and installed on top of the structure’s vertical beams. As-is, the structure likely represents a good view of the front profile of the first of three new Starship production buildings that will eventually be joined to form one giant, monolithic rocket factory.
Notably, the skeleton of the building appears to be closer to 40-50 feet tall instead of the 60 feet predicted – short enough that it likely won’t allow SpaceX to increase the height of the different sections of stacked steel rings that make up most of Starship and Super Heavy. It’s possible that another level will be added for utilities and bridge cranes but the framework currently being installed will likely cap the height of Starship sections at five standard rings (9m/30ft tall). It’s not impossible that yet-to-be-constructed sections of the new factory will be taller, but that would run counter to SpaceX’s established method of production, in which Starship sections move through multiple tents throughout assembly and outfitting.
Construction of the new factory began adjacent to Starbase’s existing tents. As work progresses and the framework turns into a real building, it remains to be seen if SpaceX will use the first building to trial a number of production upgrades, fill it with new Starship production equipment under the same paradigm as existing methods, or physically relocate an existing assembly line inside it.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk gives nod to SpaceX’s massive, previously impossible feat
It was the booster’s 30th flight, a scenario that seemed impossible before SpaceX became a dominant force in spaceflight.
Elon Musk gave a nod to one of SpaceX’s most underrated feats today. Following the successful launch of the Transporter-15 mission, SpaceX seamlessly landed another Falcon 9 booster on a droneship in the middle of the ocean.
It was the booster’s 30th flight, a scenario that seemed impossible before SpaceX became a dominant force in spaceflight.
Elon Musk celebrates a veteran Falcon 9 booster’s feat
SpaceX completed another major milestone for its Smallsat Rideshare program on Friday, successfully launching and deploying 140 spacecraft aboard a Falcon 9 from Vandenberg Space Force Base. The mission, known as Transporter-15, lifted off two days later than planned after a scrub attributed to a ground systems issue, according to SpaceFlight Now. SpaceX confirmed that all payloads designed to separate from the rocket were deployed as planned.
The Falcon 9 used for this flight was booster B1071, one of SpaceX’s most heavily flown rockets. With its 30th mission completed, it becomes the second booster in SpaceX’s fleet to reach that milestone. B1071’s manifest includes five National Reconnaissance Office missions, NASA’s SWOT satellite, and several previous rideshare deployments, among others. Elon Musk celebrated the milestone on X, writing “30 flights of the same rocket!” in his post.
Skeptics once dismissed reusability as unfeasible
While rocket landings are routine for SpaceX today, that was not always the case. Industry veterans previously questioned whether reusable rockets could ever achieve meaningful cost savings or operational reliability, often citing the Space Shuttle’s partial reusability as evidence of failure.
-->In 2016, Orbital ATK’s Ben Goldberg argued during a panel that even if rockets could be reusable, they do not make a lot of sense. He took issue with Elon Musk’s claims at the time, Ars Technica reported, particularly when the SpaceX founder stated that fuel costs account for just a fraction of launch costs.
Goldberg noted that at most, studies showed only a 30% cost reduction for low-Earth orbit missions by using a reusable rocket. “You’re not going to get 100-fold. These numbers aren’t going to change by an order of magnitude. They’re just not. That’s the state of where we are today,” he said.
Former NASA official Dan Dumbacher, who oversaw the Space Launch System, expressed similar doubts in 2014, implying that if NASA couldn’t make full reusability viable, private firms like SpaceX faced steep odds.
News
Tesla AI and Autopilot VP hints that Robovan will have RV conversions
Tesla’s vice president of AI and Autopilot software, Ashok Elluswamy, hinted at the linitiative in a reply to Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan.
It appears that Tesla is indeed considering an RV in its future pipeline, though the vehicle that would be converted for the purpose would be quite interesting. This is, at least, as per recent comments by a Tesla executive on social media platform X.
Robovan as an RV
Tesla’s vice president of AI and Autopilot software, Ashok Elluswamy, hinted at the linitiative in a reply to Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan, who called for a startup to build RVs with Full Self-Driving capabilities. In his reply, Elluswamy simply stated “On it,” while including a photo of Tesla’s autonomous 20-seat people mover.
Tesla unveiled the Robovan in October 2024 at the “We, Robot” event. The vehicle lacks a steering wheel and features a low floor for spacious interiors. The vehicle, while eclipsed by the Cybercab in news headlines, still captured the imagination of many, as hinted at by X users posting AI-generated images of Robovan RV conversions with beds, kitchens and panoramic windows on social media platforms. One such render by Tesla enthusiast Mark Anthony reached over 300,000 views on X.
Elon Musk on the Robovan
Elon Musk addressed the Robovan’s low profile in October 2024, stating the van uses automatic load-leveling suspension that raises or lowers based on road conditions. The system maintains the futuristic look while handling uneven pavement, Musk wrote on X. The CEO also stated that the Robovan is designed to be very airy inside, which would be great for an RV.
“The view from the inside is one of extreme openness, with visibility in all directions, although it may appear otherwise from the outside. The unusually low ground clearance is achieved by having an automatic load-leveling suspension that raises or lowers, based on smooth or bumpy road conditions,” Musk stated.
-->Elluswamy’s response on X suggests that Tesla is considering a Robovan RV conversion, though it would be interesting to see how the company will make the vehicle capable of reaching campsites. The Robovan has a very low ground clearance, after all, and campsites tend to be in unpaved areas.
Tesla recently released Full Self-Driving (FSD) v14.2.1, its latest version, but the tinkering with Speed Profiles has perhaps gone too far.
We try to keep it as real as possible with Full Self-Driving operation, and we are well aware that with the new versions, some things get better, but others get worse. It is all part of the process with FSD, and refinements are usually available within a week or so.
However, the latest v14.2.1 update has brought out some major complaints with Speed Profiles, at least on my end. It seems the adjustments have gone a tad too far, and there is a sizeable gap between Profiles that are next to one another.
Tesla FSD v14.2.1 first impressions:
✅ Smooth, stress-free highway operation
✅ Speed Profiles are refined — Hurry seems to be limited to 10 MPH over on highways. Switching from Mad Max to Hurry results in an abrupt braking pattern. Nothing of concern but do feel as if Speed…— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 29, 2025
The gap is so large that changing between them presents a bit of an unwelcome and drastic reduction in speed, which is perhaps a tad too fast for my liking. Additionally, Speed Profiles seem to have a set Speed Limit offset, which makes it less functional in live traffic situations.
Before I go any further, I’d like to remind everyone reading this that what I am about to write is purely my opinion; it is not right or wrong, or how everyone might feel. I am well aware that driving behaviors are widely subjective; what is acceptable to one might be unacceptable to another.
Speed Profiles are ‘Set’ to a Speed
From what I’ve experienced on v14.2.1, Tesla has chosen to go with somewhat of a preset max speed for each Speed Profile. With ‘Hurry,’ it appears to be 10 MPH over the speed limit, and it will not go even a single MPH faster than that. In a 55 MPH zone, it will only travel 65 MPH. Meanwhile, ‘Standard’ seems to be fixed at between 4-5 MPH over.
This is sort of a tough thing to have fixed, in my opinion. The speed at which the car travels should not be fixed; it should be more dependent on how traffic around it is traveling.
It almost seems as if the Speed Profile chosen should be more of a Behavior Profile. Standard should perform passes only to traffic that is slower than the traffic. If traffic is traveling at 75 MPH in a 65 MPH zone, the car should travel at 75 MPH. It should pass traffic that travels slower than this.
Hurry should be more willing to overtake cars, travel more than 10 MPH over the limit, and act as if someone is in a hurry to get somewhere, hence the name. Setting strict limits on how fast it will travel seems to be a real damper on its capabilities. It did much better in previous versions.
Some Speed Profiles are Too Distant from Others
This is specifically about Hurry and Mad Max, which are neighbors in the Speed Profiles menu. Hurry will only go 10 MPH over the limit, but Mad Max will travel similarly to traffic around it. I’ve seen some people say Mad Max is too slow, but I have not had that opinion when using it.
In a 55 MPH zone during Black Friday and Small Business Saturday, it is not unusual for traffic around me to travel in the low to mid-80s. Mad Max was very suitable for some traffic situations yesterday, especially as cars were traveling very fast. However, sometimes it required me to “gear down” into Hurry, especially as, at times, it would try to pass slower traffic in the right lane, a move I’m not super fond of.
We had some readers also mention this to us:
The abrupt speed reduction when switching to a slower speed profile is definitely an issue that should be improved upon.
— David Klem (@daklem) November 29, 2025
After switching from Mad Max to Hurry, there is a very abrupt drop in speed. It is not violent by any means, but it does shift your body forward, and it seems as if it is a tad drastic and could be refined further.
Elon Musk gives nod to SpaceX’s massive, previously impossible feat
Tesla AI and Autopilot VP hints that Robovan will have RV conversions
