News
Tesla’s manufacturing advantage lies in legacy auto’s stranded assets
Tesla’s focus on manufacturing has solved a vast number of issues that the electric automaker has encountered in its first few years of mass-scale vehicle production. With only two operational vehicle production facilities and several more on the way, Tesla’s biggest advantage in production doesn’t necessarily come down to efficiencies and solving bottlenecks. Instead, it has to do with something completely out of its control: Legacy Auto’s stranded assets.
Large vehicle manufacturers have pumped out millions of vehicles per year in sometimes between 50 and 100, sometimes more, global facilities. Volkswagen, for example, has 136 production plants across the world. This massive production operation lead to 9.3 million VW cars being delivered in 2020, a slight decrease from the nearly 11 million in 2019. However, the COVID-19 pandemic surely wiped away some of its productivity and sales.
But Volkswagen is also in limbo, much like many other automakers. Despite being one of the world’s top brands, a decline is on the way if the German company can’t figure out its electric car software issues. Even if it does, it still has 136 production plants and only a few of them build electric cars. However, all of the company’s plants will need to be transitioned into EV production facilities, a far cry away from the current gas-powered powertrains it currently builds at 98% of its properties.
It’s not just Volkswagen
Mercedes-Benz has 93 locations in 17 countries. BMW has 31 facilities in 15 countries. Ford has 65 plants all across the world.
These plants have been everything to the world’s largest car brands for decades. While the automotive industry has been powered on petrol for 99% of the auto industry’s history, EVs are slowly but surely making their way into the picture. Eventually, with so many plants for the legacy automakers, they will all build electric powertrains. But unfortunately, what has been a strength for so many car companies in the past will soon become a burden as EVs take over market share, become more appealing and more sought after by consumers, and gas cars are few and far between because electrification has taken over. The biggest, most successful, most popular badges on vehicles worldwide will soon have a serious problem on their hands if they do not think about a plan to transition these facilities into EV manufacturing plants.
Time is of the essence
Volkswagen did complete ICE production at its Zwickau plant in Mosel, Germany, in June 2020. After the company announced that the final gas-powered engine had rolled off production lines at the plant, it then came down to training all technicians, assembly workers, and production engineers on how to deal with electric powertrains.
The company stated that 20,500 total days of training time would be given to those who hold jobs at Zwickau, giving the employees no reservations about the direction the German automaker was headed toward. The entire process of transitioning the plant took six to eight months.
This is great, but when a company has 136 plants, that’s a lot of time, many people to train, and a lot of money to spend. Eventually, the plants that have pumped out billions of dollars worth of ICE cars will be rendered useless unless companies begin to update their hardware, train the employees, and prepare for an electric future.
Is delaying EV projects a result of stranded assets?
Companies are smart; there are plenty of reasons why these car companies have long been at the top of the industry. Knowing that the trillions of dollars that they have pumped into building a global powerhouse of production facilities could all be a waste as ICE cars are slowly being phased out is alarming, but perhaps this is why so many companies have avoided focusing on EVs: the thought of modifying so many plants is terrifying.
Nevertheless, it will need to be done eventually. But right now, especially in such a trying economic time, manufacturers are trying to save their faces and their balance sheets by keeping this narrative that EVs are not that important, that gas cars will still dominate, and that consumers should continue to buy petrol-powered machines. Manufacturers continue to push consumers in a direction, even if they know it doesn’t align with climate issues or sustainability because they know that their plants will need major updating. This takes time and money, and car companies don’t have a lot of that.
Tesla Model Y loses another rival after BMW cancels iX3’s US launch
For these legacy automakers, it makes more sense to push gas cars onto consumers and set aside any notions of an EV being a better option, simply because they haven’t made one that is worth a damn…yet.
How is this Tesla’s Advantage?
Tesla is sitting in a prime position to dominate the EV sector for years to come. It is no secret that the company’s vehicles are the highest quality electric cars on the planet; range and performance and contributed to this for several years. However, EVs are the way of the future, and while Tesla has to build new plants to build EVs, it isn’t building them at the massive scale that ICE manufacturers are building their cars. EVs are still a relatively small portion of the worldwide automotive market, and Tesla’s growth is on par with the industry as a whole, mostly because they are controlling it for the time being.
Tesla won’t have to build 136 plants. It won’t have to transition old factories that are pumping out useless powertrains. It will have to build more, but that won’t halt production altogether, especially considering the two factories it has now are handling demand without much of an issue.
Tesla’s plants are going to be assets for centuries to come. Meanwhile, other automakers have focused on the global scaling of their vehicle fleets, only realizing that their strategically placed production plants will all be useless in a few years unless companies begin transitioning their once high-powered manufacturing facilities to EV-based production lines.
What do you think? Leave a comment down below. Got a tip? Email us at tips@teslarati.com or reach out to me at joey@teslarati.com.
It is safe to say SpaceX won’t be going for electric rockets anytime soon.
In a characteristically blunt reply on X, SpaceX frontman Elon Musk stated, “Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible,” following reports that MSCI had assigned SpaceX its lowest possible ESG rating of CCC.
The assessment, issued just this past week, coinciding closely with SpaceX’s public market debut, placed the company on par with nations like Russia in sustainability scoring and cited significant risks in environmental, social, and governance areas.
MSCI flagged SpaceX’s exposure to rocket emissions and other operational impacts, alongside governance concerns such as concentrated control by Musk and limited shareholder protections. Musk’s terse comment directly addressed the environmental pillar, underscoring a core physical constraint that ESG frameworks often overlook when evaluating high-thrust industries.
Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 21, 2026
Electric propulsion systems do exist and are widely used in space. Ion thrusters and Hall-effect thrusters accelerate ionized propellant, typically xenon or krypton, using electric fields, achieving very high specific impulse, often exceeding 3,000 seconds compared to roughly 300–450 seconds for chemical rockets.
This efficiency makes them ideal for satellite station-keeping, orbit raising, and deep-space missions where low thrust over long durations is sufficient. SpaceX’s own Starlink satellites employ electric propulsion for these purposes.
However, launching from Earth’s surface demands something entirely different: enormous thrust delivered rapidly to overcome gravity and atmospheric drag. A typical orbital-class booster must generate thrust far exceeding its weight, often in the millions of Newtons within seconds.
Chemical rockets achieve this through exothermic combustion of dense propellants, producing high-mass-flow, high-velocity exhaust. Electric systems, by contrast, expel very small amounts of mass at extremely high speeds. Generating equivalent thrust would require impractical onboard power levels, massive energy storage or generation systems, and prohibitive added mass, rendering the approach infeasible with current or near-term technology.
Musk has previously expressed a similar sentiment, noting a desire for electric orbital rockets while acknowledging the inescapable requirements of Newton’s third law and energy delivery. The distinction is clear: electric propulsion excels once a vehicle is already in space; it cannot replace the high-thrust chemical phase required to reach orbit from the ground.
The episode illustrates broader critiques of ESG ratings. Proponents argue they incentivize better risk management and long-term sustainability. Detractors, including Musk—who has previously called ESG a “scam”—contend that such metrics can penalize essential activities when no practical alternative exists, potentially discouraging innovation in sectors like space access.
Elon Musk dubs the S&P 500 ESG as “outrageous scam” after Tesla gets booted from index
SpaceX has sought to mitigate launch-related impacts through reusability: Falcon 9 boosters have flown more than 30 times in some cases, dramatically lowering the manufacturing and emissions burden per kilogram delivered to orbit. Starship’s design further emphasizes rapid reusability and methane propellant, which can theoretically be produced via sustainable pathways.
Ultimately, Musk’s remark serves as a reminder that certain engineering realities persist regardless of scoring systems. As humanity expands its presence in space for communications, science, and exploration, balancing genuine environmental progress with technological necessity remains a central challenge.
ESG frameworks may evolve, but the fundamental limits of electric launch propulsion are unlikely to change soon.
Tesla just trademarked ‘MEGAPOD’ with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), its latest move in what seems to be a hint that the company is incredibly focused on its AI efforts and storage needs as compute increases.
The application carries serial number 99893717 and lists the applicant as Tesla, Inc., located at 1 Tesla Road, Austin, Texas 78725.
The filing remains in ‘live pending’ status, and it is a new application waiting for assignment to an examining attorney. It has not yet been published or registered.
Tesla just trademarked MEGAPOD
Summary:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and… pic.twitter.com/3l85DsKadl— Robin (@xdNiBoR) June 19, 2026
According to the official goods and services description in the application, Tesla describes ‘MEGAPOD’ as:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and cooling systems, sold as a unit; self-contained modular computing hardware systems for artificial intelligence workloads; integrated computer hardware platforms for artificial intelligence computing, namely, enclosures containing computer hardware, power distribution hardware, and cooling hardware, sold as a unit; downloadable software for monitoring, managing, optimizing, and regulating modular artificial intelligence computing hardware systems.”
This description specifies complete, self-contained modular units that integrate servers and specialized AI processing hardware with networking components, power distribution, and cooling systems. It also includes associated downloadable software for oversight and optimization of these systems. The language emphasizes hardware sold “as a unit” and enclosures that combine the necessary elements for AI computing workloads.
Tesla has an established history of developing and commercializing modular hardware systems. Its Megapack product line, for example, consists of utility-scale battery energy storage systems designed as containerized units for grid applications. The MEGAPOD filing follows a similar pattern of protecting a name for modular, integrated hardware platforms, this time focused on artificial intelligence computing infrastructure.
This could be an early move, especially as Tesla did not have trademark rights to the word ‘Cybercab,’ the name of its self-driving, ride-hailing-focused vehicle.
Trademark applications of this type allow companies to secure priority rights to a name for defined categories of goods and services. The USPTO examines applications for compliance with legal requirements, including distinctiveness and absence of conflicts with prior marks. If the application proceeds successfully through examination, publication, and any opposition period, it could result in a federal trademark registration providing nationwide protection. This is what Tesla’s obvious intention is with ‘MEGAPOD.’
Public reports and analysis suggest MEGAPOD could represent modular, container-style AI computing pods designed for easy deployment. These would bundle servers, AI accelerators, power systems, and cooling into self-contained units suitable for distributed AI workloads. This approach aligns with Tesla’s announced AI compute strategy.
In March 2026, Elon Musk outlined plans for “Digital Optimus” (also referred to as Macrohard), a joint Tesla-xAI project for AI agents capable of handling complex digital tasks. The plans include running these agents on Tesla’s AI4 hardware in parked vehicles as well as dedicated compute units installed at Supercharger stations, which collectively offer substantial unused electrical capacity.
What is Digital Optimus? The new Tesla and xAI project explained
A modular hardware platform like the one described in the ‘MEGAPOD’ filing would support scalable, rapid deployment of such distributed compute resources. It could complement Tesla’s other AI infrastructure efforts, including the Dojo supercomputer used for training models and the development of AI systems for autonomous driving and robotics, by enabling edge or regional AI inference without reliance on traditional centralized data centers.
Investor's Corner
SpaceX is launching a secret spacecraft that could change how things are made in space
SpaceX’s secret disk-shaped Starfall capsule is targeting a market no reentry vehicle has cracked.
SpaceX is targeting Tuesday, June 23 for the first flight of Starfall, a reentry capsule the company has developed almost entirely in private. The Falcon 9 launch window opens at 6:43 a.m. ET from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, with a backup window available the same time on June 24. SpaceX has made no public announcement about the vehicle, only providing launch details. Everything known about it has come through FAA and FCC regulatory filings.
What makes Starfall different starts with its shape. Rather than the traditional cone used by Dragon and every other cargo return capsule in operation, Starfall is a flat disk that measures roughly 10.2 feet (3.1 meters) wide and just 2.5 feet (0.75 meters) tall, and weighing 4,630 pounds (2,100 kg) and capable of returning up to 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms) of payload from orbit. The disk geometry maximizes structural efficiency and payload volume relative to mass, and the heat shield mechanically jettisons just before splashdown, allowing recovery teams to retrieve both the capsule and the shield separately from the Pacific Ocean.
The difference with Starfall from existing competitors, such as Varda Space Industries, which has largely built the orbital manufacturing market and returns heavy payloads per flight is that Starfall’s specification is roughly 30 times more per mission, and is designed to be mass-produced and launched on either Falcon 9 or Starship. That combination of volume and launch access is something no standalone startup can replicate, and it puts SpaceX in direct competition with the companies that currently pay it to reach orbit.
SpaceX to launch military missile tracking satellites through new Space Force contract
The intended market is orbital manufacturing: pharmaceuticals, protein crystals, semiconductors, and advanced optical fiber that physically cannot be produced in the presence of gravity. FAA documents describe Starfall’s long-term purpose as building a “self-sustaining commercial in-space manufacturing market” and as a potential successor to the industrial capabilities of the International Space Station, which is set to retire in the late 2020s. Military rapid global cargo delivery is a parallel application under active discussion with the Pentagon.
The reason some industries seek manufacturing in space comes down to gravity. On Earth, gravity causes materials to settle, separate, and deform during production. In microgravity, those constraints disappear.
SpaceX’s already controls launch access, which means it currently functions as the landlord for every competitor in the orbital manufacturing return space. Starfall converts that landlord position into vertical ownership, and it would no longer just carry other companies’ capsules to orbit, but rather operate the capsule, own the return logistics, and capture the service revenue directly. Viewed alongside Starlink, Colossus, and the xAI merger, Starfall fits a consistent pattern: SpaceX identifying infrastructure layers that others depend on and moving to own them outright. Orbital manufacturing return is the next layer on that list.
If Tuesday’s reentry, parachute sequence, and recovery demonstration goes as planned, the second FAA-approved test flight follows. A successful pair of demos would position SpaceX to begin offering Starfall as a commercial service, likely first to pharmaceutical and materials science customers before scaling toward the military and broader manufacturing segments.
Elon Musk responds to SpaceX’s ESG rating and says its rockets won’t go electric
Tesla just trademarked MEGAPOD: here’s what it is
