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!
Tesla will increase its Full Self-Driving subscription price, meaning it will eventually be more than the current $99 per month price tag it has right now.
Already stating that the ability to purchase the suite outright will be removed, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said earlier this week that the Full Self-Driving subscription price would increase when its capabilities improve:
“I should also mention that the $99/month for supervised FSD will rise as FSD’s capabilities improve. The massive value jump is when you can be on your phone or sleeping for the entire ride (unsupervised FSD).”
This was an expected change, especially as Tesla has been hinting for some time that it is approaching a feature-complete version of Full Self-Driving that will no longer require driver supervision. However, with the increase, some are concerned that they may be priced out.
$99 per month is already a tough ask for some. While Full Self-Driving is definitely worth it just due to the capabilities, not every driver is ready to add potentially 50 percent to their car payment each month to have it.
While Tesla has not revealed any target price for FSD, it does seem that it will go up to at least $150.
I should also mention that the $99/month for supervised FSD will rise as FSD’s capabilities improve.
The massive value jump is when you can be on your phone or sleeping for the entire ride (unsupervised FSD). https://t.co/YDKhXN3aaG
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 23, 2026
Additionally, the ability to purchase the suite outright is also being eliminated on February 14, which gives owners another reason to be slightly concerned about whether they will be able to afford to continue paying for Full Self-Driving in any capacity.
Some owners have requested a tiered program, which would allow people to pay for the capabilities they want at a discounted price.
Unsupervised FSD would be the most expensive, and although the company started removing Autopilot from some vehicles, it seems a Supervised FSD suite would still attract people to pay between $49 and $99 per month, as it is very useful.
Tesla will likely release pricing for the Unsupervised suite when it is available, but price increases could still come to the Supervised version as things improve.
This is not the first time Musk has hinted that the price would change with capability improvements, either. He’s been saying it for some time. In 2020, he even said the value of FSD would “probably be somewhere in excess of $100,000.”
The FSD price will continue to rise as the software gets closer to full self-driving capability with regulatory approval. It that point, the value of FSD is probably somewhere in excess of $100,000.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 18, 2020
Tesla has chosen to axe the ability to purchase Full Self-Driving outright from a select group of cars just days after CEO Elon Musk announced the company had plans to eliminate that option in February.
The company is making a clear-cut stand that it will fully transition away from the ability to purchase the Full Self-Driving suite outright, a move that has brought differing opinions throughout the Tesla community.
Earlier this week, the company also announced that it will no longer allow buyers to purchase Full Self-Driving outright when ordering a pre-owned vehicle from inventory. Instead, that will be available for $99 per month, the same price that it costs for everyone else.
The ability to buy the suite for $8,000 for a one-time fee at the time of order has been removed:
NEWS: Tesla no longer allows buyers to purchase FSD outright in the U.S. when ordering a pre-owned vehicle directly from inventory. Tesla now gives you the option to either subscribe for $99/month, or purchase FSD outright after taking delivery (available until February 14th). pic.twitter.com/1xZ0BVG4JB
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) January 23, 2026
This is a major move because it is the first time Tesla is eliminating the ability to purchase FSD outright for one flat fee to any of its vehicles, at least at the time of purchase.
It is trying to phase out the outright purchase option as much as it can, preparing people for the subscription-based service it will exclusively offer starting on February 14.
In less than a month, it won’t be available on any vehicle, which has truly driven some serious conversation from Tesla owners throughout the community.
There’s a conflict, because many believe that they will now lose the ability to buy FSD and not pay for it monthly, which is an attractive offer. However, others believe, despite paying $8,000 for FSD, that they will have to pay more money on top of that cost to get the unsupervised suite.
Additionally, CEO Elon Musk said that the FSD suite’s subscription price would increase over time as capabilities increase, which is understandable, but is also quite a conflict for those who spent thousands to have what was once promised to them, and now they may have to pay even more money.
News
Tesla Robotaxi has a highly-requested hardware feature not available on typical Model Ys
These camera washers are crucial for keeping the operation going, as they are the sole way Teslas operate autonomously. The cameras act as eyes for the car to drive, recognize speed limit and traffic signs, and travel safely.
Tesla Robotaxi has a highly-requested hardware feature that is not available on typical Model Ys that people like you and me bring home after we buy them. The feature is something that many have been wanting for years, especially after the company adopted a vision-only approach to self-driving.
After Tesla launched driverless Robotaxi rides to the public earlier this week in Austin, people have been traveling to the Lone Star State in an effort to hopefully snag a ride from one of the few vehicles in the fleet that are now no longer required to have Safety Monitors present.
BREAKING: Tesla launches public Robotaxi rides in Austin with no Safety Monitor
Although only a few of those completely driverless rides are available, there have been some new things seen on these cars that are additions from regular Model Ys, including the presence of one new feature: camera washers.
With the Model Y, there has been a front camera washer, but the other exterior “eyes” have been void of any solution for this. For now, owners are required to clean them manually.
In Austin, Tesla is doing things differently. It is now utilizing camera washers on the side repeater and rear bumper cameras, which will keep the cameras clean and keep operation as smooth and as uninterrupted as possible:
🚨 Tesla looks to have installed Camera Washers on the side repeater cameras on Robotaxis in Austin
pic.twitter.com/xemRtDtlRR— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 23, 2026
Rear Camera Washer on Tesla Robotaxi pic.twitter.com/P9hgGStHmV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) January 24, 2026
These camera washers are crucial for keeping the operation going, as they are the sole way Teslas operate autonomously. The cameras act as eyes for the car to drive, recognize speed limit and traffic signs, and travel safely.
This is the first time we are seeing them, so it seems as if Safety Monitors might have been responsible for keeping the lenses clean and unobstructed previously.
However, as Tesla transitions to a fully autonomous self-driving suite and Robotaxi expands to more vehicles in the Robotaxi fleet, it needed to find a way to clean the cameras without any manual intervention, at least for a short period, until they can return for interior and exterior washing.
Tesla to increase Full Self-Driving subscription price: here’s when
Tesla starts removing outright Full Self-Driving purchase option at time of order
