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!
Elon Musk
Tesla announces crazy new Full Self-Driving milestone
The number of miles traveled has contextual significance for two reasons: one being the milestone itself, and another being Tesla’s continuing progress toward 10 billion miles of training data to achieve what CEO Elon Musk says will be the threshold needed to achieve unsupervised self-driving.
Tesla has announced a crazy new Full Self-Driving milestone, as it has officially confirmed drivers have surpassed over 8 billion miles traveled using the Full Self-Driving (Supervised) suite for semi-autonomous travel.
The FSD (Supervised) suite is one of the most robust on the market, and is among the safest from a data perspective available to the public.
On Wednesday, Tesla confirmed in a post on X that it has officially surpassed the 8 billion-mile mark, just a few months after reaching 7 billion cumulative miles, which was announced on December 27, 2025.
Tesla owners have now driven >8 billion miles on FSD Supervisedhttps://t.co/0d66ihRQTa pic.twitter.com/TXz9DqOQ8q
— Tesla (@Tesla) February 18, 2026
The number of miles traveled has contextual significance for two reasons: one being the milestone itself, and another being Tesla’s continuing progress toward 10 billion miles of training data to achieve what CEO Elon Musk says will be the threshold needed to achieve unsupervised self-driving.
The milestone itself is significant, especially considering Tesla has continued to gain valuable data from every mile traveled. However, the pace at which it is gathering these miles is getting faster.
Secondly, in January, Musk said the company would need “roughly 10 billion miles of training data” to achieve safe and unsupervised self-driving. “Reality has a super long tail of complexity,” Musk said.
Training data primarily means the fleet’s accumulated real-world miles that Tesla uses to train and improve its end-to-end AI models. This data captures the “long tail” — extremely rare, complex, or unpredictable situations that simulations alone cannot fully replicate at scale.
This is not the same as the total miles driven on Full Self-Driving, which is the 8 billion miles milestone that is being celebrated here.
The FSD-supervised miles contribute heavily to the training data, but the 10 billion figure is an estimate of the cumulative real-world exposure needed overall to push the system to human-level reliability.
News
Tesla Cybercab production begins: The end of car ownership as we know it?
While this could unlock unprecedented mobility abundance — cheaper rides, reduced congestion, freed-up urban space, and massive environmental gains — it risks massive job displacement in ride-hailing, taxi services, and related sectors, forcing society to confront whether the benefits of AI-driven autonomy will outweigh the human costs.
The first Tesla Cybercab rolled off of production lines at Gigafactory Texas yesterday, and it is more than just a simple manufacturing milestone for the company — it’s the opening salvo in a profound economic transformation.
Priced at under $30,000 with volume production slated for April, the steering-wheel-free, pedal-less Robotaxi-geared vehicle promises to make personal car ownership optional for many, slashing transportation costs to as little as $0.20 per mile through shared fleets and high utilization.
Credit: wudapig/Reddit< /a>
While this could unlock unprecedented mobility abundance — cheaper rides, reduced congestion, freed-up urban space, and massive environmental gains — it risks massive job displacement in ride-hailing, taxi services, and related sectors, forcing society to confront whether the benefits of AI-driven autonomy will outweigh the human costs.
Let’s examine the positives and negatives of what the Cybercab could mean for passenger transportation and vehicle ownership as we know it.
The Promise – A Radical Shift in Transportation Economics
Tesla has geared every portion of the Cybercab to be cheaper and more efficient. Even its design — a compact, two-seater, optimized for fleets and ride-sharing, the development of inductive charging, around 300 miles of range on a small battery, half the parts of the Model 3, and revolutionary “unboxed” manufacturing — is all geared toward rapid production.
Operating at a fraction of what today’s rideshare prices are, the Cybercab enables on-demand autonomy for a variety of people in a variety of situations.
Tesla ups Robotaxi fare price to another comical figure with service area expansion
It could also be the way people escape expensive and risky car ownership. Buying a vehicle requires expensive monthly commitments, including insurance and a payment if financed. It also immediately depreciates.
However, Cybercab could unlock potential profitability for owning a car by adding it to the Robotaxi network, enabling passive income. Cities could have parking lots repurposed into parks or housing, and emissions would drop as shared electric vehicles would outnumber gas cars (in time).
The first step of Tesla’s massive production efforts for the Cybercab could lead to millions of units annually, turning transportation into a utility like electricity — always available, cheap, and safe.
The Dark Side – Job Losses and Industry Upheaval
With Robotaxi and Cybercab, they present the same negatives as broadening AI — there’s a direct threat to the economy.
Uber, Lyft, and traditional taxis will rely on human drivers. Robotaxi will eliminate that labor cost, potentially displacing millions of jobs globally. In the U.S. alone, ride-hailing accounts for billions of miles of travel each year.
There are also potential ripple effects, as suppliers, mechanics, insurance adjusters, and even public transit could see reduced demand as shared autonomy grows. Past automation waves show job creation lags behind destruction, especially for lower-skilled workers.
Gig workers, like those who are seeking flexible income, face the brunt of this. Displaced drivers may struggle to retrain amid broader AI job shifts, as 2025 estimates bring between 50,000 and 300,000 layoffs tied to artificial intelligence.
It could also bring major changes to the overall competitive landscape. While Waymo and Uber have partnered, Tesla’s scale and lower costs could trigger a price war, squeezing incumbents and accelerating consolidation.
Balancing Act – Who Wins and Who Loses
There are two sides to this story, as there are with every other one.
The winners are consumers, Tesla investors, cities, and the environment. Consumers will see lower costs and safer mobility, while potentially alleviating themselves of awkward small talk in ride-sharing applications, a bigger complaint than one might think.
Elon Musk confirms Tesla Cybercab pricing and consumer release date
Tesla investors will be obvious winners, as the launch of self-driving rideshare programs on the company’s behalf will likely swell the company’s valuation and increase its share price.
Cities will have less traffic and parking needs, giving more room for housing or retail needs. Meanwhile, the environment will benefit from fewer tailpipes and more efficient fleets.
A Call for Thoughtful Transition
The Cybercab’s production debut forces us to weigh innovation against equity.
If Tesla delivers on its timeline and autonomy proves reliable, it could herald an era of abundant, affordable mobility that redefines urban life. But without proactive policies — retraining, safety nets, phased deployment — this revolution risks widening inequality and leaving millions behind.
Elon on the MKBHD bet, stating “Yes” to the question of whether Tesla would sell a Cybercab for $30k or less to a customer before 2027 https://t.co/sfTwSDXLUN
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 17, 2026
The real question isn’t whether the Cybercab will disrupt — it’s already starting — it’s whether society is prepared for the economic earthquake it unleashes.
News
Tesla Model 3 wins Edmunds’ Best EV of 2026 award
The publication rated the Model 3 at an 8.1 out of 10, and with its most recent upgrades and changes, Edmunds says, “This is the best Model 3 yet.”
The Tesla Model 3 has won Edmunds‘ Top Rated Electric Car of 2026 award, beating out several other highly-rated and exceptional EV offerings from various manufacturers.
This is the second consecutive year the Model 3 beat out other cars like the Model Y, Audi A6 Sportback E-tron, and the BMW i5.
The car, which is Tesla’s second-best-selling vehicle behind the popular Model Y crossover, has been in the company’s lineup for nearly a decade. It offers essentially everything consumers could want from an EV, including range, a quality interior, performance, and Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite, which is one of the best in the world.
The Tesla Model 3 has won Edmunds Top EV of 2026:
“The Tesla Model 3 might be the best value electric car you can buy, combining an Edmunds Rating of 8.1 out of 10, a starting price of $43,880, and an Edmunds-tested range of 338 miles. This is the best Model 3 yet. It is… pic.twitter.com/ARFh24nnDX
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 18, 2026
The publication rated the Model 3 at an 8.1 out of 10, and with its most recent upgrades and changes, Edmunds says, “This is the best Model 3 yet.”
In its Top Rated EVs piece on its website, it said about the Model 3:
“The Tesla Model 3 might be the best value electric car you can buy, combining an Edmunds Rating of 8.1 out of 10, a starting price of $43,880, and an Edmunds-tested range of 338 miles. This is the best Model 3 yet. It is impressively well-rounded thanks to improved build quality, ride comfort, and a compelling combination of efficiency, performance, and value.”
Additionally, Jonathan Elfalan, Edmunds’ Director of Vehicle Testing, said:
“The Model 3 offers just about the perfect combination of everything — speed, range, comfort, space, tech, accessibility, and convenience. It’s a no-brainer if you want a sensible EV.”
The Model 3 is the perfect balance of performance and practicality. With the numerous advantages that an EV offers, the Model 3 also comes in at an affordable $36,990 for its Rear-Wheel Drive trim level.
Tesla announces crazy new Full Self-Driving milestone
Tesla Cybercab production begins: The end of car ownership as we know it?
