Connect with us

News

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

Published

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:

Advertisement

“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:

Advertisement

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.

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.

Advertisement

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!

Advertisement

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

Elon Musk

California city weighs banning Elon Musk companies like Tesla and SpaceX

A resolution draft titled, “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” alleges that Musk “has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”

Published

on

tesla supercharger
Credit: Tesla

A California City Council is planning to weigh whether it would adopt a resolution that would place a ban on its engagement with Elon Musk companies, like Tesla and SpaceX.

The City of Davis, California, will have its City Council weigh a new proposal that would adopt a resolution “to divest from companies owned and/or controlled by Elon Musk.”

This would include a divestment proposal to encourage CalPERS, the California Public Employees Retirement System, to divest from stock in any Musk company.

A resolution draft titled, “Resolution Ending Engagement With Elon Musk-Controlled Companies and To Encourage CalPERS To Divest Stock In These Companies,” alleges that Musk “has engaged in business practices that are alleged to include violations of labor laws, environmental regulations, workplace safety standards, and regulatory noncompliance.”

Advertisement

It claims that Musk “has used his influence and corporate platforms to promote political ideologies and activities that threaten democratic norms and institutions, including campaign finance activities that raise ethical and legal concerns.”

If adopted, Davis would bar the city from entering into any new contracts or purchasing agreements with any company owned or controlled by Elon Musk. It also says it will not consider utilizing Tesla Robotaxis.

Hotel owner tears down Tesla chargers in frustration over Musk’s politics

A staff report on the proposal claims there is “no immediate budgetary impact.” However, a move like this would only impact its residents, especially with Tesla, as the Supercharger Network is open to all electric vehicle manufacturers. It is also extremely reliable and widespread.

Advertisement

Regarding the divestment request to CalPERS, it would not be surprising to see the firm make the move. Although it voted against Musk’s compensation package last year, the firm has no issue continuing to make money off of Tesla’s performance on Wall Street.

The decision to avoid Musk companies will be considered this evening at the City Council meeting.

The report comes from Davis Vanguard.

It is no secret that Musk’s political involvement, especially during the most recent Presidential Election, ruffled some feathers. Other cities considered similar options, like the City of Baltimore, which “decided to go in another direction” after awarding Tesla a $5 million contract for a fleet of EVs for city employees.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla launches new Model 3 financing deal with awesome savings

Tesla is now offering a 0.99% APR financing option for all new Model 3 orders in the United States, and it applies to all loan terms of up to 72 months.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla has launched a new Model 3 financing deal in the United States that brings awesome savings. The deal looks to move more of the company’s mass-market sedan as it is the second-most popular vehicle Tesla offers, behind its sibling, the Model Y.

Tesla is now offering a 0.99% APR financing option for all new Model 3 orders in the United States, and it applies to all loan terms of up to 72 months.

It includes three Model 3 configurations, including the Model 3 Performance. The rate applies to:

  • Model 3 Premium Rear-Wheel-Drive
  • Model 3 Premium All-Wheel-Drive
  • Model 3 Performance

The previous APR offer was 2.99%.

Tesla routinely utilizes low-interest offers to help move vehicles, especially as the rates can help get people to payments that are more comfortable with their monthly budgets. Along with other savings, like those on maintenance and gas, this is another way Tesla pushes savings to customers.

Advertisement

The company had offered a similar program in China on the Model 3 and Model Y vehicles, but it had ended on January 31.

The Model 3 was the second-best-selling electric vehicle in the United States in 2025, trailing only the Model Y. According to automotive data provided by Cox, Tesla sold 192,440 units last year of the all-electric sedan. The Model Y sold 357,528 units.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla hasn’t adopted Apple CarPlay yet for this shocking reason

Many Apple and iPhone users have wanted the addition, especially to utilize third-party Navigation apps like Waze, which is a popular alternative. Getting apps outside of Tesla’s Navigation to work with its Full Self-Driving suite seems to be a potential issue the company will have to work through as well.

Published

on

Credit: Michał Gapiński/YouTube

Perhaps one of the most requested features for Tesla vehicles by owners is the addition of Apple CarPlay. It sounds like the company wants to bring the popular UI to its cars, but there are a few bottlenecks preventing it from doing so.

The biggest reason why CarPlay has not made its way to Teslas yet might shock you.

According to Bloomberg‘s Mark Gurman, Tesla is still working on bringing CarPlay to its vehicles. There are two primary reasons why Tesla has not done it quite yet: App compatibility issues and, most importantly, there are incredibly low adoption rates of iOS 26.

Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions are not dead, they’re still in the works

Advertisement

iOS 26 is Apple’s most recent software version, which was released back in September 2025. It introduced a major redesign to the overall operating system, especially its aesthetic, with the rollout of “Liquid Glass.”

However, despite the many changes and updates, Apple users have not been too keen on the iOS 26 update, and the low adoption rates have been a major sticking point for Tesla as it looks to develop a potential alternative for its in-house UI.

It was first rumored that Tesla was planning to bring CarPlay out in its cars late last year. Many Apple and iPhone users have wanted the addition, especially to utilize third-party Navigation apps like Waze, which is a popular alternative. Getting apps outside of Tesla’s Navigation to work with its Full Self-Driving suite seems to be a potential issue the company will have to work through as well.

According to the report, Tesla asked Apple to make some changes to improve compatibility between its software and Apple Maps:

Advertisement

“Tesla asked Apple to make engineering changes to Maps to improve compatibility. The iPhone maker agreed and implemented the adjustments in a bug fix update to iOS 26 and the latest version of CarPlay.”

Gurman also said that there were some issues with turn-by-turn guidance from Tesla’s maps app, and it did not properly sync up with Apple Maps during FSD operation. This is something that needs to be resolved before it is rolled out.

There is no listed launch date, nor has there been any coding revealed that would indicate Apple CarPlay is close to being launched within Tesla vehicles.

Advertisement
Continue Reading