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 Model 3 named New Zealand’s best passenger car of 2025
Tesla flipped the switch on Full Self-Driving (Supervised) in September, turning every Model 3 and Model Y into New Zealand’s most advanced production car overnight.
The refreshed Tesla Model 3 has won the DRIVEN Car Guide AA Insurance NZ Car of the Year 2025 award in the Passenger Car category, beating all traditional and electric rivals.
Judges praised the all-electric sedan’s driving dynamics, value-packed EV tech, and the game-changing addition of Full Self-Driving (Supervised) that went live in New Zealand this September.
Why the Model 3 clinched the crown
DRIVEN admitted they were late to the “Highland” party because the updated sedan arrived in New Zealand as a 2024 model, just before the new Model Y stole the headlines. Yet two things forced a re-evaluation this year.
First, experiencing the new Model Y reminded testers how many big upgrades originated in the Model 3, such as the smoother ride, quieter cabin, ventilated seats, rear touchscreen, and stalk-less minimalist interior. Second, and far more importantly, Tesla flipped the switch on Full Self-Driving (Supervised) in September, turning every Model 3 and Model Y into New Zealand’s most advanced production car overnight.
FSD changes everything for Kiwi buyers
The publication called the entry-level rear-wheel-drive version “good to drive and represents a lot of EV technology for the money,” but highlighted that FSD elevates it into another league. “Make no mistake, despite the ‘Supervised’ bit in the name that requires you to remain ready to take control, it’s autonomous and very capable in some surprisingly tricky scenarios,” the review stated.
-->At NZ$11,400, FSD is far from cheap, but Tesla also offers FSD (Supervised) on a $159 monthly subscription, making the tech accessible without the full upfront investment. That’s a game-changer, as it allows users to access the company’s most advanced system without forking over a huge amount of money.
News
Tesla starts rolling out FSD V14.2.1 to AI4 vehicles including Cybertruck
FSD V14.2.1 was released just about a week after the initial FSD V14.2 update was rolled out.
It appears that the Tesla AI team burned the midnight oil, allowing them to release FSD V14.2.1 on Thanksgiving. The update has been reported by Tesla owners with AI4 vehicles, as well as Cybertruck owners.
For the Tesla AI team, at least, it appears that work really does not stop.
FSD V14.2.1
Initial posts about FSD V14.2.1 were shared by Tesla owners on social media platform X. As per the Tesla owners, V14.2.1 appears to be a point update that’s designed to polish the features and capacities that have been available in FSD V14. A look at the release notes for FSD V14.2.1, however, shows that an extra line has been added.
“Camera visibility can lead to increased attention monitoring sensitivity.”
Whether this could lead to more drivers being alerted to pay attention to the roads more remains to be seen. This would likely become evident as soon as the first batch of videos from Tesla owners who received V14.21 start sharing their first drive impressions of the update. Despite the update being released on Thanksgiving, it would not be surprising if first impressions videos of FSD V14.2.1 are shared today, just the same.
-->Rapid FSD releases
What is rather interesting and impressive is the fact that FSD V14.2.1 was released just about a week after the initial FSD V14.2 update was rolled out. This bodes well for Tesla’s FSD users, especially since CEO Elon Musk has stated in the past that the V14.2 series will be for “widespread use.”
FSD V14 has so far received numerous positive reviews from Tesla owners, with numerous drivers noting that the system now drives better than most human drivers because it is cautious, confident, and considerate at the same time. The only question now, really, is if the V14.2 series does make it to the company’s wide FSD fleet, which is still populated by numerous HW3 vehicles.
News
Waymo rider data hints that Tesla’s Cybercab strategy might be the smartest, after all
These observations all but validate Tesla’s controversial two-seat Cybercab strategy, which has caught a lot of criticism since it was unveiled last year.
Toyota Connected Europe designer Karim Dia Toubajie has highlighted a particular trend that became evident in Waymo’s Q3 2025 occupancy stats. As it turned out, 90% of the trips taken by the driverless taxis carried two or fewer passengers.
These observations all but validate Tesla’s controversial two-seat Cybercab strategy, which has caught a lot of criticism since it was unveiled last year.
Toyota designer observes a trend
Karim Dia Toubajie, Lead Product Designer (Sustainable Mobility) at Toyota Connected Europe, analyzed Waymo’s latest California Public Utilities Commission filings and posted the results on LinkedIn this week.
“90% of robotaxi trips have 2 or less passengers, so why are we using 5-seater vehicles?” Toubajie asked. He continued: “90% of trips have 2 or less people, 75% of trips have 1 or less people.” He accompanied his comments with a graphic showing Waymo’s occupancy rates, which showed 71% of trips having one passenger, 15% of trips having two passengers, 6% of trips having three passengers, 5% of trips having zero passengers, and only 3% of trips having four passengers.
The data excludes operational trips like depot runs or charging, though Toubajie pointed out that most of the time, Waymo’s massive self-driving taxis are really just transporting 1 or 2 people, at times even no passengers at all. “This means that most of the time, the vehicle being used significantly outweighs the needs of the trip,” the Toyota designer wrote in his post.
-->Cybercab suddenly looks perfectly sized
Toubajie gave a nod to Tesla’s approach. “The Tesla Cybercab announced in 2024, is a 2-seater robotaxi with a 50kWh battery but I still believe this is on the larger side of what’s required for most trips,” he wrote.
With Waymo’s own numbers now proving 90% of demand fits two seats or fewer, the wheel-less, lidar-free Cybercab now looks like the smartest play in the room. The Cybercab is designed to be easy to produce, with CEO Elon Musk commenting that its product line would resemble a consumer electronics factory more than an automotive plant. This means that the Cybercab could saturate the roads quickly once it is deployed.
While the Cybercab will likely take the lion’s share of Tesla’s ride-hailing passengers, the Model 3 sedan and Model Y crossover would be perfect for the remaining 9% of riders who require larger vehicles. This should be easy to implement for Tesla, as the Model Y and Model 3 are both mass-market vehicles.
Tesla Model 3 named New Zealand’s best passenger car of 2025
Tesla starts rolling out FSD V14.2.1 to AI4 vehicles including Cybertruck
