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!
News
Tesla wins another award critics will absolutely despise
Tesla earned an overall score of 49 percent, up 6 percentage points from the previous year, widening its lead over second-place Ford (45 percent, up 2 points) to a commanding 4-percentage-point gap. The company also excelled in the Fossil Free & Environment category with a 50 percent score, reflecting strong progress in reducing emissions and decarbonizing operations.
Tesla just won another award that critics will absolutely despise, as it has been recognized once again as the company with the most sustainable supply chain.
Tesla has once again proven its critics wrong, securing the number one spot on the 2026 Lead the Charge Auto Supply Chain Leaderboard for the second consecutive year, Lead the Charge rankings show.
NEWS: Tesla ranked 1st on supply chain sustainability in the 2026 Lead the Charge auto/EV supply chain scorecard.
“@Tesla remains the top performing automaker of the Leaderboard for the second year running, and increased its overall score by 6 percentage points, while Ford only… pic.twitter.com/nAgGOIrGFS
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) March 4, 2026
This independent ranking, produced by a coalition of environmental, human rights, and investor groups including the Sierra Club, Transport & Environment, and others, evaluates 18 major automakers on their efforts to build equitable, sustainable, and fossil-free supply chains for electric vehicles.
Tesla earned an overall score of 49 percent, up 6 percentage points from the previous year, widening its lead over second-place Ford (45 percent, up 2 points) to a commanding 4-percentage-point gap. The company also excelled in the Fossil Free & Environment category with a 50 percent score, reflecting strong progress in reducing emissions and decarbonizing operations.
Perhaps the most impressive achievement came in the batteries subsection, where Tesla posted a massive +20-point jump to reach 51 percent, becoming the first automaker ever to surpass 50 percent in this critical area.
Tesla achieved this milestone through transparency, fully disclosing Scope 3 emissions breakdowns for battery cell production and key materials like lithium, nickel, cobalt, and graphite.
The company also requires suppliers to conduct due diligence aligned with OECD guidelines on responsible sourcing, which it has mentioned in past Impact Reports.
While Tesla leads comfortably in climate and environmental performance, it scores 48 percent in human rights and responsible sourcing, slightly behind Ford’s 49 percent.
The company made notable gains in workers’ rights remedies, but has room to improve on issues like Indigenous Peoples’ rights.
Overall, the leaderboard highlights that a core group of leaders, Tesla, Ford, Volvo, Mercedes, and Volkswagen, are advancing twice as fast as their peers, proving that cleaner, more ethical EV supply chains are not just possible but already underway.
For Tesla detractors who claim EVs aren’t truly green or that the company cuts corners, this recognition from sustainability-focused NGOs delivers a powerful rebuttal.
Tesla’s vertical integration, direct supplier contracts, low-carbon material agreements (like its North American aluminum deal with emissions under 2kg CO₂e per kg), and raw materials reporting continue to set the industry standard.
As the world races toward electrification, Tesla isn’t just building cars; it’s building a more responsible future.
News
Tesla Full Self-Driving likely to expand to yet another Asian country
“We are aiming for implementation in 2026. [We are] doing everything in our power [to achieve this],” Richi Hashimoto, president of Tesla’s Japanese subsidiary, said.
Tesla Full Self-Driving is likely to expand to yet another Asian country, as one country seems primed for the suite to head to it for the first time.
The launch of Full Self-Driving in yet another country this year would be a major breakthrough for Tesla as it continues to expand the driver-assistance program across the world. Bureaucratic red tape has held up a lot of its efforts, but things are looking up in some regions.
Tesla is poised to transform Japan’s roads with Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology by 2026.
Richi Hashimoto, president of Tesla’s Japanese subsidiary, announced the ambitious timeline, building on successful employee test drives that began in 2025 and earned positive media reviews. Test drives, initially limited to the Model 3 since August 2025, expanded to the Model Y on March 5.
Once regulators approve, Over-the-Air (OTA) software updates could activate FSD across roughly 40,000 Teslas already on Japanese roads. Japan’s orderly traffic and strict safety culture make it an ideal testing ground for autonomous driving.
Hashimoto said:
“We are aiming for implementation in 2026. [We are] doing everything in our power [to achieve this].”
The push aligns with Hashimoto’s leadership, which has been credited for Tesla’s sales turnaround.
In 2025, Tesla delivered a record 10,600 vehicles in Japan — a nearly 90% jump from the prior year and the first time exceeding 10,000 units annually.
BREAKING 🇯🇵 FSD IS LIKELY LAUNCHING IN JAPAN IN 2026 🚨
Richi Hashimoto, President of Tesla’s Japanese subsidiary, stated: “We are aiming for implementation in 2026” and added that they are “doing everything in our power” to achieve this 🔥
Test drives in Japan began in August… pic.twitter.com/jkkrJLszXN
— Ming (@tslaming) March 5, 2026
The strategy shifted from online-only sales to adding 29 physical showrooms in high-traffic malls, plus staff training and attractive financing offers launched in January 2026. Tesla also plans to expand its Supercharger network to over 1,000 points by 2027, boosting accessibility.
This Japanese momentum reflects Tesla’s broader international expansion. In Europe, Giga Berlin produced more than 200,000 vehicles in 2025 despite a temporary halt, supplying over 30 markets with plans for sequential production growth in 2026 and battery cell manufacturing by 2027.
While regional EV sales faced headwinds, the factory remains a cornerstone for Model Y deliveries across the continent.
In Asia, Giga Shanghai continues to be recognized as Tesla’s powerhouse. China, the company’s largest market, saw January 2026 deliveries from the plant rise 9 percent year-over-year to 69,129 units, with affordable new models expected later this year.
FSD advancements, already progressing in the U.S. and South Korea, are slated for Europe and further Asian rollout, complementing plans to expand Cybercab and Optimus to new markets as well.
With OTA-enabled autonomy on the horizon and retail strategies paying dividends, Tesla is strengthening its footprint from Tokyo showrooms to Berlin assembly lines and Shanghai exports. As Hashimoto continues to push Tesla forward in Japan, the company’s global vision for sustainable, self-driving mobility gains traction across Europe and Asia.
News
Tesla ships out update that brings massive change to two big features
“This change only updates the name of certain features and text in your vehicle,” the company wrote in Release Notes for the update, “and does not change the way your features behave.”
Tesla has shipped out an update for its vehicles that was caused specifically by a California lawsuit that threatened the company’s ability to sell cars because of how it named its driver assistance suite.
Tesla shipped out Software Update 2026.2.9 starting last week; we received it already, and it only brings a few minor changes, mostly related to how things are referenced.
“This change only updates the name of certain features and text in your vehicle,” the company wrote in Release Notes for the update, “and does not change the way your features behave.”
The following changes came to Tesla vehicles in the update:
- Navigate on Autopilot has now been renamed to Navigate on Autosteer
- FSD Computer has been renamed to AI Computer
Tesla faced a 30-day sales suspension in California after the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles stated the company had to come into compliance regarding the marketing of its automated driving features.
The agency confirmed on February 18 that it had taken a “corrective action” to resolve the issue. That corrective action was renaming certain parts of its ADAS.
Tesla discontinued its standalone Autopilot offering in January and ramped up the marketing of Full Self-Driving Supervised. Tesla had said on X that the issue with naming “was a ‘consumer protection’ order about the use of the term ‘Autopilot’ in a case where not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.”
This was a “consumer protection” order about the use of the term “Autopilot” in a case where not one single customer came forward to say there’s a problem.
Sales in California will continue uninterrupted.
— Tesla North America (@tesla_na) December 17, 2025
It is now compliant with the wishes of the California DMV, and we’re all dealing with it now.
This was the first primary dispute over the terminology of Full Self-Driving, but it has undergone some scrutiny at the federal level, as some government officials have claimed the suite has “deceptive” names. Previous Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was one of those federal-level employees who had an issue with the names “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving.”
Tesla sued the California DMV over the ruling last week.
Tesla wins another award critics will absolutely despise
Tesla Full Self-Driving likely to expand to yet another Asian country
