Connect with us

News

NASA may prematurely kill long-lived Mars rover with arbitrary wake-up deadline

Published

7 years ago

on

In a decision with no obvious empirical explanation, JPL’s Opportunity Mars rover project manager John Callas was quoted in an August 30th press release saying that the NASA field center would be “forced to conclude” that the dust storm-stricken rover was effectively beyond saving if it fails to come back to life 45 days after 2018’s massive dust storm can be said to have officially ended.

Over the course of that press release, Callas made a number of points that may technically hold at least a few grains of truth, but entirely fail to add up to any satisfactory explanation for the choices described therein. This is underscored in one critical and extended quote:

“If we do not hear back [from Opportunity] after 45 days, the team will be forced to conclude that the Sun-blocking dust and the Martian cold have conspired to cause some type of fault from which the rover will more than likely not recover. At that point, our active phase of reaching out to Opportunity will be at an end. However, in the unlikely chance that there is a large amount of dust sitting on the solar arrays that is blocking the Sun’s energy, we will continue passive listening efforts for several months.” – John Calwell, JPL

Advertisement
-->

Scott Maxwell, a former JPL engineer who led drive planning for rovers Spirit and Opportunity, solidly explained the differences between active and passive recovery attempts:

The JPL press release offers exactly zero explanation for the “45-day” deadline, starting the moment that dust clears from Martian skies near Opportunity to a certain degree, likely to happen within the next few weeks. Nor does it explain why “active” recovery attempts would stop at that point, despite the fact that the PR happens to directly acknowledge the fact that the best time to attempt to actively restore contact Opportunity might be after Mars’ windy season is given a chance to blow accumulated dust off of the rover’s solar arrays.

In fact, while all points Callas/the press release makes may theoretically be valid, the experiences of the actual engineers that have been operating Opportunity and MER sister rover Spirit for nearly two decades suggest that his explanations are utterly shallow and fail even the most cursory comparison with real data.

Advertisement
-->

Thanks largely to a number of comments collected by The Atlantic from past, present, and anonymous employees involved with Opportunity, it would seem that there is no truly empirical way to properly estimate the amount of dust that may or may not be on the rover’s solar arrays, no rational engineering-side explanation for the 45-day ultimatum, no clear excuse for how incredibly short that time-frame is, and essentially zero communication between whoever this decision originates from and the engineers tasked with operating and restoring communications with the forlorn, 15-year old rover.

An ESA Mars orbiter captured this extraordinary photo of Mars’ 2018 dust storm front earlier this year. (ESA)

Most tellingly, this exact impromptu dust-storm-triggered hibernation already occurred several times in the past, and even resulted in the demise of Opportunity’s sister rover Spirit in 2010. The Atlantic notes that when a dust storm forced that rover into hibernation in 2010, JPL mission engineers spent a full ten months actively attempting to resuscitate Spirit, followed by another five months of passive listening before the rescue effort was called off.

Given that Opportunity’s engineers appear to believe that there is every reason to expect that the rover can, has, and should survive 2018’s exceptional Martian dust storm, the only plausible explanation for the arbitrary countdown and potentially premature silencing of one of just two active rovers on Mars is purely political and financial. While it requires VERY little money to operate scientific spacecraft when compared with manufacturing and launch costs, the several millions of dollars needed to fund operations engineers and technicians (roughly $15 million per year for Opportunity) could technically be funneled elsewhere or the employees in question could be redirected to newer programs.

For example, the ~$200 million spent operating the rover from 2004 to 2018 could instead fund considerably less than 20% of the original cost of building and launching both Opportunity and Spirit. This is to say that that cutting operation of functioning spacecraft to save money can be quite fairly compared with throwing an iPhone in the trash because the charging cable ripped because $10 could instead be put towards buying a new phone months or years down the line.

Ultimately, all we can do is hope that Opportunity manages to successfully wake up over the course of the next two or three months. If the rover is unable to do so, chances are sadly high that it will be lost forever once active communications restoration efforts come to an end. With an extraordinarily productive 15 years of exploration nearly under its belt, Opportunity – originally designed with an expected lifespan of ~90 days – would leave behind a legacy that would fail to disappoint even the most ardent cynic. Still, if life may yet remain in the rover, every effort ought to be made to keep the intrepid craft alive.

Advertisement
-->

For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!

Related Topics:

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

Investor's Corner

Tesla analyst realizes one big thing about the stock: deliveries are losing importance

Published

3 hours ago

on

December 15, 2025

By

Credit: Joe Tegtmeyer | YouTube

Tesla analyst Dan Levy of Barclays realized one big thing about the stock moving into 2026: vehicle deliveries are losing importance.

As a new era of Tesla seems to be on the horizon, the concern about vehicle deliveries and annual growth seems to be fading, at least according to many investors.

Even CEO Elon Musk has implied at times that the automotive side, as a whole, will only make up a small percentage of Tesla’s total valuation, as Optimus and AI begin to shine with importance.

He said in April:

“The future of the company is fundamentally based on large-scale autonomous cars and large-scale and large volume, vast numbers of autonomous humanoid robots.”

Advertisement
-->

Levy wrote in a note to investors that Tesla’s Q4 delivery figures “likely won’t matter for the stock.” Barclays said in the note that it expects deliveries to be “soft” for the quarter.

In years past, Tesla analysts, investors, and fans were focused on automotive growth.

Cars were truly the biggest thing the stock had to offer: Tesla was a growing automotive company with a lot of prowess in AI and software, but deliveries held the most impact, along with vehicle pricing. These types of things had huge impacts on the stock years ago.

Advertisement
-->

In fact, several large swings occurred because of Tesla either beating or missing delivery estimates:

  • January 3, 2022: +13.53%, record deliveries at the time
  • January 3, 2023: -12.24%, missed deliveries
  • July 2, 2024: +10.20%, beat delivery expectations
  • October 3, 2022: -8.61%, sharp miss due to Shanghai factory shutdown
  • July 2, 2020: +7.95%, topped low COVID-era expectations with sizeable beat on deliveries

It has become more apparent over the past few quarters that delivery estimates have significantly less focus from investors, who are instead looking for progress in AI, Optimus, Cybercab, and other projects.

These things are the future of the company, and although Tesla will always sell cars, the stock is more impacted by the software the vehicle is running, and not necessarily the vehicle itself.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla removes Safety Monitors, begins fully autonomous Robotaxi testing

This development, in terms of the Robotaxi program, is massive. Tesla has been working incredibly hard to expand its fleet of Robotaxi vehicles to accommodate the considerable demand it has experienced for the platform.

Published

15 hours ago

on

December 14, 2025

By

Credit: @Mandablorian | X

Tesla has started Robotaxi testing in Austin, Texas, without any vehicle occupants, the company’s CEO Elon Musk confirmed on Sunday. Two Tesla Model Y Robotaxi units were spotted in Austin traveling on public roads with nobody in the car.

The testing phase begins just a week after Musk confirmed that Tesla would be removing Safety Monitors from its vehicles “within the next three weeks.” Tesla has been working to initiate driverless rides by the end of the year since the Robotaxi fleet was launched back in June.

Two units were spotted, with the first being seen from the side and clearly showing no human beings inside the cabin of the Model Y Robotaxi:

Advertisement
-->

Another unit, which is the same color but was confirmed as a different vehicle, was spotted just a few moments later:

Advertisement
-->

The two units are traveling in the general vicinity of the South Congress and Dawson neighborhoods of downtown Austin. These are located on the southside of the city.

This development, in terms of the Robotaxi program, is massive. Tesla has been working incredibly hard to expand its fleet of Robotaxi vehicles to accommodate the considerable demand it has experienced for the platform.

However, the main focus of the Robotaxi program since its launch in the Summer was to remove Safety Monitors and initiate completely driverless rides. This effort is close to becoming a reality, and the efforts of the company are coming to fruition.

Advertisement
-->

It is a drastic step in the company’s trek for self-driving technology, as it plans to expand it to passenger vehicles in the coming years. Tesla owners have plenty of experience with the Full Self-Driving suite, which is not fully autonomous, but is consistently ranked among the best-performing platforms in the world.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla refines Full Self-Driving, latest update impresses where it last came up short

We were able to go out and test it pretty extensively on Saturday, and the changes Tesla made from the previous version were incredibly impressive, especially considering it seemed to excel where it last came up short.

Published

1 day ago

on

December 14, 2025

By

Credit: TESLARATI

Tesla released Full Self-Driving v14.2.1.25 on Friday night to Early Access Program (EAP) members. It came as a surprise, as it was paired with the release of the Holiday Update.

We were able to go out and test it pretty extensively on Saturday, and the changes Tesla made from the previous version were incredibly impressive, especially considering it seemed to excel where it last came up short.

Tesla supplements Holiday Update by sneaking in new Full Self-Driving version

With Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.1, there were some serious regressions. Speed Profiles were overtinkered with, causing some modes to behave in a strange manner. Hurry Mode was the most evident, as it refused to go more than 10 MPH over the speed limit on freeways.

It would routinely hold up traffic at this speed, and flipping it into Mad Max mode was sort of over the top. Hurry is what I use most frequently, and it had become somewhat unusable with v14.2.1.

Advertisement
-->

It seemed as if Speed Profiles should be more associated with both passing and lane-changing frequency. Capping speeds does not help as it can impede the flow of traffic. When FSD travels at the speed of other traffic, it is much more effective and less disruptive.

With v14.2.1.25, there were three noticeable changes that improved its performance significantly: Speed Profile refinements, lane change confidence, and Speed Limit recognition.

Advertisement
-->

Speed Profile Refinement

Speed Profiles have been significantly improved. Hurry Mode is no longer capped at 10 MPH over the speed limit and now travels with the flow of traffic. This is much more comfortable during highway operation, and I was not required to intervene at any point.

With v14.2.1, I was sometimes assisting it with lane changes, and felt it was in the wrong place at the wrong time more frequently than ever before.

However, this was one of the best-performing FSD versions in recent memory, and I really did not have any complaints on the highway. Speed, maneuvering, lane switching, routing, and aggressiveness were all perfect.

Lane Changes

v14.2.1 had a tendency to be a little more timid when changing lanes, which was sort of frustrating at times. When the car decides to change lanes and turn on its signal, it needs to pull the trigger and change lanes.

It also changed lanes at extremely unnecessary times, which was a real frustration.

Advertisement
-->

There were no issues today on v14.2.1.25; lane changes were super confident, executed at the correct time, and in the correct fashion. It made good decisions on when to get into the right lane when proceeding toward its exit.

It was one of the first times in a while that I did not feel as if I needed to nudge it to change lanes. I was very impressed.

Speed Limit Recognition

So, this is a complex issue. With v14.2.1, there were many times when it would see a Speed Limit sign that was not meant for the car (one catered for tractor trailers, for example) or even a route sign, and it would incorrectly adjust the speed. It did this on the highway several times, mistaking a Route 30 sign for a 30 MPH sign, then beginning to decelerate from 55 MPH to 30 MPH on the highway.

This required an intervention. I also had an issue leaving a drive-thru Christmas lights display, where the owners of the private property had a 15 MPH sign posted nearly every 200 yards for about a mile and a half.

The car identified it as a 55 MPH sign and sped up significantly. This caused an intervention, and I had to drive manually.

Advertisement
-->

It seems like FSD v14.2.1.25 is now less reliant on the signage (maybe because it was incorrectly labeling it) and more reliant on map data or the behavior of nearby traffic.

A good example was on the highway today: despite the car reading that Route 30 sign and the Speed Limit sign on the center screen reading 30 MPH, the car did not decelerate. It continued at the same speed, but I’m not sure if that’s because of traffic or map data:

A Lone Complaint

Tesla has said future updates will include parking improvements, and I’m really anxious for them, because parking is not great. I’ve had some real issues with it over the past couple of months.

Today was no different:

Full Self-Driving v14.2.1.25 is really a massive improvement over past versions, and it seems apparent that Tesla took its time with fixing the bugs, especially with highway operation on v14.2.1.

Continue Reading