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

SpaceX is keeping the Space Station alive again this weekend

SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launches Northrop Grumman’s Cygnus NG-24 to the ISS with 11,000 pounds of cargo Saturday.

Published

on

By

spacex-investment-alphabet-profit

SpaceX is targeting April 11 for the launch of Northrop Grumman’s Cygnus XL cargo spacecraft to the International Space Station, carrying over 11,000 pounds of supplies, science hardware, and equipment for the Expedition 73 crew aboard. Liftoff is set for 7:41 a.m. ET from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, with a backup window available April 12 at 7:18 a.m. ET.

The mission, officially designated NG-24 under NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services program, names its spacecraft the S.S. Steven R. Nagel in honor of the NASA astronaut who flew four Space Shuttle missions and logged over 723 hours in space before his death in 2014. Unlike SpaceX’s own Dragon capsule, which docks autonomously, Cygnus relies on NASA astronauts to capture it using a robotic arm before it is berthed to the space station’s module for unloading. When the mission wraps up around October, the Cygnus will depart loaded with station trash and burn up on reentry.

Countdown: America is going back to the Moon and SpaceX holds the key to what comes after

This is the second flight of the Cygnus XL configuration, which debuted on NG-23 in September 2025 and offers a roughly 20% increase in cargo capacity over the previous design. Northrop Grumman switched to Falcon 9 launches after its own Antares 230+ rocket was retired in 2023 following supply chain disruptions from the war in Ukraine.

Advertisement

The upcoming cargo includes a new module to advance quantum research, and an investigation studying blood stem cell production in microgravity with potential therapeutic applications on Earth.

The NG-24 mission is one piece of a much larger picture for SpaceX and the U.S. government. As Teslarati reported, SpaceX has become an indispensable launch provider for U.S. national security missions, picking up a $178.5 million Space Force contract in April 2026 to launch missile tracking satellites, while also holding roughly $4 billion in NASA contracts tied to the Artemis lunar program.

At a time when no other American rocket can match the Falcon 9’s combination of reliability, cost, and launch cadence, Saturday’s mission is a straightforward reminder of how much the U.S. government now depends on a single commercial provider to keep its astronauts supplied and its satellites flying.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla hits FSD hackers with surprise move

In recent weeks, the company has begun remotely disabling FSD capabilities on affected vehicles, and in some instances, permanently revoking access even for owners who paid thousands of dollars for the feature.

Published

on

Tesla is cracking down on hackers who have figured out a way to utilize third-party programs to activate Full Self-Driving (FSD) in their vehicles — despite the suite not being approved for use in their country.

Tesla has launched a sweeping enforcement campaign against owners using third-party hardware hacks to activate FSD software in countries where the advanced driver-assistance system remains unregulated or unapproved.

In recent weeks, the company has begun remotely disabling FSD capabilities on affected vehicles, and in some instances, permanently revoking access even for owners who paid thousands of dollars for the feature.

Reports of the crackdown have surfaced across Europe, China, Japan, South Korea, and the UK, marking a significant escalation in Tesla’s efforts to enforce regional software restrictions.

FSD is Tesla’s flagship supervised autonomy package, which is available in several countries across the world. Currently limited by regulatory hurdles, it has not received full approval in most markets outside of the United States due to various things, such as safety standards, data privacy, and local traffic laws.

Advertisement

However, the company is working to expand its availability globally. Nevertheless, Tesla has installed the necessary hardware on vehicles globally, but locks the features based on geographic location.

Some owners have taken accessing FSD into their own hands, using jailbreak or bypass devices.

These “jailbreak” tools, typically €500 USB-style modules that plug into the vehicle’s Controller Area Network (CAN) bus, intercept signals to spoof approvals and unlock FSD, including advanced navigation, Autopark, and Summon features.

Hackers in Poland, Ukraine, and elsewhere have distributed the devices, with some claiming they work on HW3 and HW4 vehicles and can be unplugged to restore stock settings. In China alone, over 100,000 owners reportedly installed such modifications.

Advertisement

Tesla’s response has been swift and uncompromising. Recently, the company began sending in-car notifications and emails warning owners that unauthorized modifications violate terms of service, compromise vehicle safety systems, and expose cars to cybersecurity risks.

The email communication read:

“Your vehicle has detected an unauthorized third-party device. As a precaution, some driver assistance functions have been disabled for safety reasons. A software update will be available soon. Once you install the update, some features may be enabled again.”

Vehicles detected using the hacks have had FSD capabilities remotely disabled without refund. In some cases, owners report permanent bans, even if they had legitimately purchased the software package.

Advertisement

Tesla’s hardline stance underscores its commitment to regulatory compliance and safety.

Tesla has long argued that unsupervised FSD requires rigorous validation, and premature activation could endanger drivers and bystanders.

The crackdown sends a clear-cut message to those who are bypassing the FSD safeguards, but there are greater implications for Tesla if something were to go wrong. This is an understandable way to protect the company’s reputation for its FSD suite.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla developing small, affordable SUV, report claims

This latest rumor deserves heavy scrutiny. Tesla has already walked away from a mass-market $25,000 EV once before.

Published

on

Credit: Tine Rusc

Tesla is developing a small, affordable SUV, a new report claims, speculating that the automaker is planning to add yet another vehicle to its lineup at a price point similar to the Model 3 and Model Y, but smaller and more compact.

But it does not make a whole lot of sense, especially considering a handful of things CEO Elon Musk said and the overall plan for Tesla’s future.

Reuters reported that Tesla is in the early stages of developing an all-new, smaller, cheaper electric SUV. Citing four sources familiar with the matter, the story claims the vehicle would be shorter than the Model Y, built in China, and represent a fresh platform rather than a variant of the Model 3 or Y.

Suppliers have reportedly been contacted to discuss details, though Tesla has not commented. The move appears aimed at broadening affordability amid slowing EV demand and intensifying competition, particularly from Chinese rivals.

Advertisement

This latest rumor deserves heavy scrutiny. Tesla has already walked away from a mass-market $25,000 EV once before.

In 2024, the company scrapped its long-teased “Redwood” project for a budget-friendly car. Elon Musk explained the decision bluntly during an earnings call: a conventional low-cost model would be “pointless” and “completely at odds with what we believe.”

In other words, chasing a bare-bones cheap EV runs counter to Tesla’s core mission of accelerating sustainable energy through cutting-edge technology and autonomy rather than volume-driven price wars.

Musk’s own recent statements reinforce skepticism about a compact SUV pivot. Just two weeks ago, on March 25, he responded to fan requests for a minivan by posting on X: “Something way cooler than a minivan is coming.”

Elon Musk says Tesla is developing a new vehicle: ‘Way cooler than a minivan’

Advertisement

The remark came in the context of family-hauling needs, with Musk highlighting the Cybertruck’s ability to seat multiple child seats. It signals Tesla’s focus is shifting toward more spacious, innovative people-movers—not shrinking its lineup.

U.S. demand data echoes this logic.

The long-wheelbase Model Y L—a six-seat, stretched variant offering extra room for families—has generated massive interest wherever offered. Fans in the U.S. have basically begged for the Model Y L to make its way to the States, or for the company to develop a full-size SUV.

The Model Y L is selling well in China, where it is manufactured.

Advertisement

Delivery wait times for the Model Y L stretched into February 2026 as orders poured in. Tesla recently expanded the trim to eight new Asian markets, yet it remains unavailable in the United States, where consumer appetite for a larger, more practical SUV is reportedly strong.

American buyers have consistently favored bigger vehicles; the Model Y already outsells most competitors precisely because it delivers crossover utility without compromise. A compact model shorter than today’s bestseller would likely miss this mark entirely.

Tesla’s product strategy has long emphasized differentiation through autonomy, range, and desirability rather than racing to the bottom on price. Stripped-down variants of the Model 3 and Y have already struggled to ignite broad demand.

A new compact SUV built in China might sound logical on paper for cost-sensitive buyers, but it risks repeating past missteps—diluting brand cachet while ignoring clear signals from Musk and the market.

Advertisement

History suggests Tesla talks about affordable cars more often than it delivers them. Whether this Reuters scoop evolves into metal or joins the $25k project on the scrap heap remains to be seen.

For now, the smart money is on Tesla doubling down on “way cooler” vehicles that actually fit American families—and Tesla’s ambitious vision—rather than a smaller SUV that feels like yesterday’s news.

Continue Reading