News
NASA may prematurely kill long-lived Mars rover with arbitrary wake-up deadline
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.
Below the upbeat-sounding title of this press release is the scarier fact that after tau clears below 1.5, the rover has 45 days to wake up before NASA stops actively trying to revive it. Come on, #WakeUpOppy https://t.co/piCQLeaCEO
— Emily Lakdawalla (@elakdawalla) August 30, 2018
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
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:
Because it's a FAQ … "active listening" has two parts: (1) forcing Opportunity's radio, if she's listening, to a particular frequency (because it can drift), and (2) a command to talk to us. Pretty much guaranteed to work if she's awake with her radio on. https://t.co/iaHbHXFKqm
— 🇺🇦ScottMaxwell @marsroverdriver@deepspace.social (@marsroverdriver) August 31, 2018
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.
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.
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.
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!
Elon Musk
Tesla owners explore potential FSD pricing options as uncertainty looms
We asked Tesla owners what the company should price Full Self-Driving moving forward, as now it’s going to be subscription-based. There were some interesting proposals.
Tesla is starting the process of removing the ability to purchase the Full Self-Driving suite outright, as it pulled the purchase option in the United States over the weekend.
However, there has been some indication by CEO Elon Musk that the price of the subscription will increase as the suite becomes more robust. But Tesla finds itself in an interesting situation with this: the take rate for Full Self-Driving at $99 per month is about 12 percent, and Musk needs a significant increase in this rate to reach a tranche in his new compensation package.
This leaves Tesla and owners in their own respective limbos: Tesla needs to find a price that will incentivize consumers to use FSD, while owners need Tesla to offer something that is attractive price-wise.
We asked Tesla owners what the company should price Full Self-Driving moving forward, as now it’s going to be subscription-based. There were some interesting proposals.
Price Reduction
Although people are willing to pay the $99 per month for the FSD suite, it certainly is too high for some owners. Many suggested that if Tesla would back down the price to $49, or somewhere around that region, many owners would immediately subscribe.
Others suggested $69, which would make a lot of sense considering Musk’s obsession with that number.
Different Pricing for Supervised and Unsupervised
With the release of the Unsupervised version of Full Self-Driving, Tesla has a unique opportunity to offer pricing for different attention level requirements.
$50/mo for supervised.
$300/mo for unsupervised including insurance.— pɦoɿɟ pᴉʌɒp (@CSUDavid) February 15, 2026
Unsupervised Full Self-Driving would be significantly more expensive, but not needed by everyone. Many people indicate they would still like to drive their cars manually from time to time, but others said they’d just simply be more than okay with only having Supervised FSD available in their cars.
Time-Based Pricing
Tesla could price FSD on a duration-based pricing model, including Daily, Weekly, Monthly, and Annual rates, which would incentivize longer durations with better pricing.
Annually, the rate could be $999 per year, while Monthly would stay at $99. However, a Daily pass of FSD would cost somewhere around $10, while a $30 per week cost seems to be ideal.
These all seem to be in line with what consumers might want. However, Tesla’s attitude with FSD is that it is the future of transportation, and with it offering only a Monthly option currently, it does not seem as if it will look as short-term as a Daily pass.
Tiered Pricing
This is perhaps the most popular option, according to what we’ve seen in comments and replies.
This would be a way to allow owners to pick and choose which FSD features they would like most and pay for them. The more features available to you, the more it costs.
For example, if someone only wanted Supervised driving and Autopark, it could be priced at $50 per month. Add in Summon, it could be $75.
This would allow people to pick only the features they would use daily.
Tesla has left a single loophole to purchase Full Self-Driving outright. On Sunday, the option officially disappeared from the Online Design Studio in the United States, as Tesla transitioned to a Subscription-only purchasing plan for the FSD suite.
However, there is still one way to get the Full Self-Driving suite in an outright manner, which would not require the vehicle owner to pay monthly for the driver assistance program — but you have to buy a Model S or Model X.
Months ago, Tesla launched a special “Luxe Package” for the Model S and Model X, which included Full Self-Driving for the life of the vehicle, as well as free Supercharging at over 75,000 locations, as well as free Premium Connectivity, and a Four-Year Premium Service package, which includes wheel and tire protection, windshiel protection, and recommended maintenance.
🚨 Tesla increased the price of both the Model S and Model X by $10,000, but both vehicles now include the “Luxe Package,” which includes:
-Full Self-Driving
-Four years of included maintenance, tire and wheel repairs, and windshield repairs/replacements
-Free lifetime… pic.twitter.com/LKv7rXruml— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 16, 2025
It would also be available through the purchase of a Cyberbeast, the top trim of the Cybertruck lineup.
This small loophole would allow owners to avoid the monthly payment, but there have been some changes in the fine print of the program, as Tesla has added that it will not be transferable to subsequent vehicle owners or to another vehicle.
This goes for the FSD and the Supercharging offers that come with the Luxe Package.
For now, Tesla still has the Full Self-Driving subscription priced at $99 per month. However, that price is expected to increase over the course of some time, especially as its capabilities improve. Tesla seems to be nearing Unsupervised FSD based on Musk’s estimates for the Cybercab program.
There is the potential that Tesla offers both Unsupervised and Supervised FSD for varying prices, but this is not confirmed.
In other countries, Tesla has pushed back the deadline to purchase the suite outright, as in Australia, it has been adjusted to March 31.
News
Tesla Sweden’s port deal sparks political clash in Trelleborg
The extension of Tesla’s lease has drawn criticism from the local Social Democratic opposition.
Tesla Sweden’s lease agreement at the Port of Trelleborg has triggered a political dispute, with local leaders divided over whether the municipally owned port should continue renting space to the electric vehicle maker amidst its ongoing conflict with the IF Metall union.
Tesla Sweden’s recently extended contract with the Port of Trelleborg has triggered calls for greater political oversight of future agreements.
Tesla has used the Port of Trelleborg to import vehicles into Sweden amid a blockade by the Transport Workers’ Union, as noted in a report from Dagens Arbete (DA). By routing cars via trucks on passenger ferries, the company has maintained deliveries despite the labor dispute. Vehicles have also been stored and prepared in facilities leased from the municipal port company.
The extension of Tesla’s lease has drawn criticism from the local Social Democratic opposition. Initially, the Port of Trelleborg hinted that it would not enter into new agreements with Tesla, but it eventually opted to renew its existing contract with the EV maker anyway.
Lennart Höckert, an opposition councilor, described the port’s decision as a “betrayal of the Swedish model,” arguing that a municipally owned entity should not appear to side with one party in an active labor dispute.
“If you want to protect the Swedish model, you shouldn’t get involved in a conflict and help one of the parties. When you as a company do this, it means that you are actually taking a position and making things worse in an already ongoing conflict,” Höckert said.
He added that the party now wants politicians to review and approve future rental agreements involving municipal properties at the port.
The proposal has been sharply criticized by Mathias Andersson of the Sweden Democrats, who chairs the municipal board. In comments to local media, Andersson described the Social Democrats’ approach as “Kim Jong Un-style,” arguing that political leaders should not micromanage a company governed by its own board.
“I believe that the port should be run like any other business,” Andersson said. He also noted that operational decisions fall under the authority of the Port of Trelleborg’s board instead of elected officials.
Tesla owners explore potential FSD pricing options as uncertainty looms
Tesla leaves a single loophole to purchase Full Self-Driving outright
