News
SpaceX borrows Tesla's tent factory strategy for new Starship production HQ
Confirmed yesterday morning by CEO Elon Musk, SpaceX has copied Tesla’s approach to factory expansion and is building a giant tent to upgrade its South Texas Starship production facilities.
A big step towards more traditional aerospace-style manufacturing facilities, SpaceX has contracted the same company used by Tesla to create a fourth general assembly line (GA4) in a giant tent outside its Fremont, CA factory in 2018. Instead of Model 3s, however, Sprung Instant Structures (Sprung for short) is rapidly raising a large tent that will eventually allow SpaceX to fabricate and weld more Starship parts and sections in an enclosed environment, an improvement from the current practice of building prototypes out in the harsh environment of coastal Texas.
In typical fashion, Musk believes that the new enclosed production facilities – just a collection of shipping crates as of December 18th – could be ready to begin manufacturing Starship parts as early as next month, and the progress Sprung has made makes it unusually hard to fault his optimism.
Likely taken in mid-December, aerial photos taken by pilot and photographer Sam Sun help sketch out a rough view of the prospective Starship factory. SpaceX appears to have almost entirely foregone a concrete foundation for the new tent, instead opting for lines of steel shipping containers that likely add a bit of height at the cost of structural stability.
.@BocaChicaGal covers the work at these sites extensively, but here's a peek over the fence 😉 pic.twitter.com/0eDJp2agqr— Sam Sun (@BirdsNSpace) December 29, 2019
According to figures printed right on one of Sprung Structures’ many shipments of materials, the initial building will measure approximately 45 meters (150 ft) wide, 77 meters (255 ft) long, and 18 meters (60 ft) tall. While Tesla’s GA4 tent is the same width and (mostly) height, it’s an impressive 280 meters (915 ft) long – almost four times bigger than SpaceX’s newest Boca Chica addition.
While the shipping container foundation is definitely a bit of a risk a mile from the Gulf of Mexico, it does mean that SpaceX might actually be able to move the shell of its new Starship factory if the need arises. SpaceX is in the midst of expanding its Boca Chica lots, potentially giving the company a lot more space to grow its enclosed factory down the road. The simplest possible expansion available would basically double the length of the existing structure, making it more like 150-180 meters (500-600 ft) long.
Regardless, even the current 150′ x 255′ enclosure will end up offering more than 38,000 ft² (3500 m²) of factory space once finished. Depending on what its primary purpose is, SpaceX could probably fit 5-8 stacks of 5-6 rings each (10-11m tall) down the center of the tent, with room for maybe 10-24 additional stacks of 2-3+ rings (3.5-5m tall) in the space remaining. The middle line of hypothetical rings could produce the entire barrel section of 1-2 Starships simultaneously, leaving perhaps 3-4 large sections to be welded together out in the elements or at SpaceX’s new wedge-shaped windbreak.
Of course, the facility will likely end up being mixed-use, potentially offering enough space to simultaneous fabricate all subsections of a single Starship prototype before they are assembled elsewhere.
Ultimately, Sprung is now in the process of installing a large quantity of insulation inside the tent’s walls, indicating that SpaceX’s South Texas welding crew may soon be blessed with a climate-controlled work environment. Meanwhile, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk believes that Boca Chica’s new tent could be complete and ready to begin building Starship hardware as soon as January 2020, while he says that the next Starship prototype – now known as Starship SN01 (serial number 01) – could be ready for flight testing just one or two months after that.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
