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 CEO Elon Musk revealed today on the social media platform X that legacy automakers, such as Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis, do not want to license the company’s Full Self-Driving suite, at least not without a long list of their own terms.
“I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy,” Musk said on X. “When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless.”
I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy …
When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless. 🤷♂️
🦕 🦕
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 24, 2025
Musk made the remark in response to a note we wrote about earlier today from Melius Research, in which analyst Rob Wertheimer said, “Our point is not that Tesla is at risk, it’s that everybody else is,” in terms of autonomy and self-driving development.
Wertheimer believes there are hundreds of billions of dollars in value headed toward Tesla’s way because of its prowess with FSD.
A few years ago, Musk first remarked that Tesla was in early talks with one legacy automaker regarding licensing Full Self-Driving for its vehicles. Tesla never confirmed which company it was, but given Musk’s ongoing talks with Ford CEO Jim Farley at the time, it seemed the Detroit-based automaker was the likely suspect.
Tesla’s Elon Musk reiterates FSD licensing offer for other automakers
Ford has been perhaps the most aggressive legacy automaker in terms of its EV efforts, but it recently scaled back its electric offensive due to profitability issues and weak demand. It simply was not making enough vehicles, nor selling the volume needed to turn a profit.
Musk truly believes that many of the companies that turn their backs on FSD now will suffer in the future, especially considering the increased chance it could be a parallel to what has happened with EV efforts for many of these companies.
Unfortunately, they got started too late and are now playing catch-up with Tesla, XPeng, BYD, and the other dominating forces in EVs across the globe.
Tesla is backtracking on a strange adjustment it made to its in-car Navigation feature after numerous complaints from owners convinced the company to make a change.
Tesla’s in-car Navigation is catered to its vehicles, as it routes Supercharging stops and preps your vehicle for charging with preconditioning. It is also very intuitive, and features other things like weather radar and a detailed map outlining points of interest.
However, a recent change to the Navigation by Tesla did not go unnoticed, and owners were really upset about it.
For trips that required multiple Supercharger stops, Tesla decided to implement a naming change, which did not show the city or state of each charging stop. Instead, it just showed the business where the Supercharger was located, giving many owners an unwelcome surprise.
However, Tesla’s Director of Supercharging, Max de Zegher, admitted the update was a “big mistake on our end,” and made a change that rolled out within 24 hours:
The naming change should have happened at once, instead of in 2 sequential steps. That was a big miss on our end. We do listen to the community and we do course-correct fast. The accelerated fix rolled out last night. The Tesla App is updated and most in-car touchscreens should…
— Max (@MdeZegher) November 20, 2025
The lack of a name for the city where a Supercharging stop would be made caused some confusion for owners in the short term. Some drivers argued that it was more difficult to make stops at some familiar locations that were special to them. Others were not too keen on not knowing where they were going to be along their trip.
Tesla was quick to scramble to resolve this issue, and it did a great job of rolling it out in an expedited manner, as de Zegher said that most in-car touch screens would notice the fix within one day of the change being rolled out.
Additionally, there will be even more improvements in December, as Tesla plans to show the common name/amenity below the site name as well, which will give people a better idea of what to expect when they arrive at a Supercharger.
News
Dutch regulator RDW confirms Tesla FSD February 2026 target
The regulator emphasized that safety, not public pressure, will decide whether FSD receives authorization for use in Europe.
The Dutch vehicle authority RDW responded to Tesla’s recent updates about its efforts to bring Full Self-Driving (Supervised) in Europe, confirming that February 2026 remains the target month for Tesla to demonstrate regulatory compliance.
While acknowledging the tentative schedule with Tesla, the regulator emphasized that safety, not public pressure, will decide whether FSD receives authorization for use in Europe.
RDW confirms 2026 target, warns Feb 2026 timeline is not guaranteed
In its response, which was posted on its official website, the RDW clarified that it does not disclose details about ongoing manufacturer applications due to competitive sensitivity. However, the agency confirmed that both parties have agreed on a February 2026 window during which Tesla is expected to show that FSD (Supervised) can meet required safety and compliance standards. Whether Tesla can satisfy those conditions within the timeline “remains to be seen,” RDW added.
RDW also directly addressed Tesla’s social media request encouraging drivers to contact the regulator to express support. While thanking those who already reached out, RDW asked the public to stop contacting them, noting these messages burden customer-service resources and have no influence on the approval process.
“In the message on X, Tesla calls on Tesla drivers to thank the RDW and to express their enthusiasm about this planning to us by contacting us. We thank everyone who has already done so, and would like to ask everyone not to contact us about this. It takes up unnecessary time for our customer service. Moreover, this will have no influence on whether or not the planning is met,” the RDW wrote.
The RDW shares insights on EU approval requirements
The RDW further outlined how new technology enters the European market when no existing legislation directly covers it. Under EU Regulation 2018/858, a manufacturer may seek an exemption for unregulated features such as advanced driver assistance systems. The process requires a Member State, in this case the Netherlands, to submit a formal request to the European Commission on the manufacturer’s behalf.
Approval then moves to a committee vote. A majority in favor would grant EU-wide authorization, allowing the technology across all Member States. If the vote fails, the exemption is valid only within the Netherlands, and individual countries must decide whether to accept it independently.
Before any exemption request can be filed, Tesla must complete a comprehensive type-approval process with the RDW, including controlled on-road testing. Provided that FSD Supervised passes these regulatory evaluations, the exemption could be submitted for broader EU consideration.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk says automakers do not want to license Full Self-Driving
Tesla backtracks on strange Nav feature after numerous complaints
