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 has reportedly pushed the unveiling of the Roadster once again, but there are also evidently new details about the event that the company plans to show off.
The Information reported this morning that Tesla will now unveil, for the second time, the next-generation Roadster in August, a further delay from the multiple timeline that the company had previously stated.
The report has not been confirmed or denied by Tesla at any capacity.
It also states the unveiling event will take place in Texas, the same place that Tesla executives revealed in May would be the place of manufacture for the company’s highly-anticipated supercar, which boasts a top speed of over 250 MPH and 650 miles of range, according to its website.
Tesla is also expected to showcase the SpaceX package, which will be used for faster acceleration and potentially hovering capabilities, at the unveiling event, the report states. Musk has always planned for this to happen, but now it seems it is more realistic than ever
The report also states the Roadster unveiling is planned for August pic.twitter.com/By26XZIJzU
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
The Roadster has had its unveiling date and manufacturing date pushed back on many occasions. It was set to start production in 2020, but the COVID-19 pandemic crippled supply chain operations, forcing Tesla to push its timeline back considerably.
However, COVID has been over for some time, and Tesla has still not managed to successfully schedule and execute an unveiling event, which is something fans and enthusiasts, as well as those who have put down a $50,000 deposit, have been waiting for.
The vehicle was close to completion last year, but Musk truly wanted Lars Moravy and Franz von Holzhausen to push the limits of the Roadster. In July of last year, Moravy said:
“Roadster is definitely in development. We did talk about it last Sunday night. We are gearing up for a super cool demo. It’s going to be mind-blowing; We showed Elon some cool demos last week of the tech we’ve been working on, and he got a little excited.”
It is important to note two things: Tesla has not confirmed these details, and the company has regularly pushed these dates back. Until Tesla sends out formal invitations with a concrete date, taking any unveiling event reports with a grain of salt is a good idea.
Tesla is offering a tasty Supercharging incentive on certain Model 3 trims, but the company has officially put a concrete end date on it, so those interested should act fast.
Tesla is offering Free Supercharging for One Year on the Model 3 Premium and Performance trims, the top two offerings of the all-electric sedan. There are three trims of the Model 3 that will have the Free Supercharging offer attached:
- Premium Rear-Wheel-Drive – $42,490
- Premium All-Wheel-Drive – $47,490
- Performance – $54,990
Tesla has now announced that this offer will expire on June 15, giving potential buyers about ten days to take advantage of the incentive.
This could be an additional incentive for car buyers to transition to electric vehicles. Many states are showing gas prices well over $4 per gallon, with the national average currently sitting at $4.22, according to AAA.
A free year of Supercharging miles would allow people to charge and travel for free, other than routine maintenance, which is already incredibly cheap compared to a gas car.
🚨 Tesla is now showing that it’s Free Supercharging offer for Model 3 Premium and Performance trims ends June 15 pic.twitter.com/VCLeddNSj8
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
At Tesla Superchargers, peak rates, meaning prices between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m., average between $0.45 and $0.60. One year of driving at an average of 12,000 miles would cost between $1,000 and $1,500 at $0.50 per kWh. It’s a pretty good deal.
Supercharging prices have also increased recently:
Many of the Superchargers in my area just had their peak rates increased from $0.44 per kWh to $0.49, $0.52, and $0.54 per kWh
If you’re looking to save on your commute/travel for the next year, this Model 3 Free Supercharging incentive might not be a bad idea https://t.co/YDwwl4xxHk pic.twitter.com/DleURW7eqa
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
Tesla has used Free Supercharging to move units in the past, and it’s a great strategy for those who plan to use the car for longer commutes, cross-country drives, or do not have reliable access to home charging.
It should be noted that Tesla recommends that Supercharging be used at a minimum to preserve the life of the battery, as fast-charging is more stressful on the cells.
However, some people might not have an option, so the Free Supercharging incentive could truly be a great reason for many people to charge their cars.
The Supercharging incentive is short-term, and it is pretty rare that Tesla utilizes it, so once this offer is gone, we probably will not see it on the Model 3 for some time.
Ferrari CEO Benedetto Vigna revealed that the Italian automaker’s future will not involve self-driving, a point that echoes that of Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s — sort of.
You might be thinking, “Are you insane? Musk has been so incredibly hellbent on delivering self-driving vehicles to the public, so much so that he has even hinted that Tesla won’t need the ever-popular and widely-requested Model Y L in the U.S.”
However, when it comes to electric supercars with high-performance specs and lofty price tags, Vigna’s stance is exactly what Musk wants for Tesla’s own hypercar project, the Tesla Roadster.
🚨 Tesla Roadster vs. Ferrari Luce
Price – $250,000 vs. $640,000
Horsepower – 1,000+ vs. 1,035
0-60 MPH – 1.1s OR 1.9s vs. 2.4s
Top Speed – 250+ MPH vs. 194 MPH
Range – 620 miles vs. 280 miles https://t.co/uEgswwVLeD pic.twitter.com/XcP58ZRO6Z— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 5, 2026
In a new interview with Australian media outlet Drive, Vigna made it clear that Ferrari’s ambitions for the future do not involve autonomy, simply because the company’s cars are not designed for anything but manual, spirited driving.
He said:
“We will not make fully autonomous cars — loud and clear. We want the people to have fun, not the [computer] chips. We want to have a steering wheel and a man or a woman behind the steering wheel. Otherwise, why do you buy a Ferrari?”
This seems to be a reasonable assertion. Ferraris are not made for daily commutes, cross-country road trips, or bumper-to-bumper traffic. They’re made for fast, spirited driving, and many of their buyers will only put a few thousand miles on them throughout their lifetime. True, exciting, fun driving is meant to be done manually.
That is not to say Full Self-Driving or other semi-autonomous suites are not “fun,” but they are meant to take the stress out of driving. They are made for the daily commutes, the rush hour traffic, and the parking lots and garages. It’s made to take the stress out of driving.
Tesla Full Self-Driving attempts 150-mile stress test: the good and the bad
Musk had stated in an interview in early 2026 that the Roadster would also be geared toward fun, manually-controlled driving. On the Moonshots podcast with Peter Diamandis, Musk said about the Roadster:
“This is not a…safety is not the main goal. If you buy a Ferrari, safety is not the number one goal. I say, if safety is your number one goal, do not buy the Roadster…We’ll aspire not to kill anyone in this car. It’ll be the best of the last of the human-driven cars. The best of the last.”
There are cars out there that simply are meant to be driven by humans, and Ferraris and Roadsters are a few of them. Ferrari has no true advantage in developing self-driving; their cars sell at low volumes with high price tags, and their performance specs and engineering are all geared toward spirited driving.
Tesla Roadster unveiling gets pushed again, but new event details emerge
Tesla Model 3 has a tasty Supercharging incentive, but it’s ending soon
