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 Model Y tops California vehicle sales despite Elon Musk backlash
Data from the California New Car Dealers Association (CNCDA) showed the Model Y outsold its nearest competitor by more than 50,000 units.
The Tesla Model Y was California’s best-selling new vehicle in 2025 for the fourth straight year, despite protests against CEO Elon Musk and a changeover to the Model Y’s updated variant that caused a pause in production and deliveries early in the year.
Data from the California New Car Dealers Association (CNCDA) showed the Model Y outsold its nearest competitor by more than 50,000 units, according to KRON4.
The Model Y recorded 110,120 registrations in California in 2025. The second-best-selling vehicle, the Toyota RAV4, posted 65,604 units, followed by the Toyota Camry at 62,324. The Tesla Model 3 ranked fourth with 53,989 sales, ahead of the Honda Civic at 53,085 units.
Despite leading the state, Model Y sales have trended downward year-over-year. Registrations fell from 132,636 in 2023 to 128,923 in 2024, and then to 110,120 in 2025. Overall Tesla sales in California also declined, dropping from 238,589 in 2023 to 202,865 in 2024 and 179,656 in 2025.
The slowdown comes as the federal $7,500 EV tax credit ended, removing a key incentive that had supported electric vehicle demand for years.
“Tesla has a few advantages. Tesla, as a brand, has a status, cache, so I think folks in certain parts of the Bay. Owning a Tesla is a thing. I think that’s breaking down over time, especially given the political controversies surrounding Mr. Musk,” CNCDA President Brian Maas said.
California saw multiple anti-Musk protests in 2025, along with notable reports of consumer-owned Teslas being vandalized and attacked by protesters and activists. The fact that the Model Y and Model 3 remained strong performers in California is then a testament to the quality and value of the two vehicles.
Tesla’s sales of the Model Y and Model 3 might see an increase this year, as the company has announced that it is sunsetting its two more expensive cars, the Model S and Model X. With the Model S and Model X retired, more consumers will likely go for the Model Y and Model 3.
“Maybe the Model S has outlived its usefulness in terms of attracting customers. It’s no surprise the ones they kept are the Model Y and Model 3,” Maas noted.
News
Tesla Supercharger left offline as Swedish court backs union strike
The completed Supercharger has been stalled for nearly two years amid Tesla’s conflict with the IF Metall union in Sweden.
Tesla’s Supercharger station in Ljungby, Sweden will remain without power after a Swedish administrative court rejected the company’s appeal to force a grid connection to the site. The completed Supercharger has been stalled for nearly two years amid Tesla’s conflict with the IF Metall union in Sweden.
The court ruled that the ongoing union strike against Tesla Sweden is valid grounds for the Supercharger’s connection delay, as noted in an Allt Om Elbil report.
The Ljungby Supercharger was one of the first charging stations that were denied grid access after IF Metall launched its strike against Tesla Sweden in late 2023. Electricians at local grid operator Ljungby Energinät were pulled into a sympathy strike by the Seko union, preventing the site’s connection.
Tesla reported both Ljungby Energinät and Gävle Energi Elnät AB to the Swedish Energy Market Inspectorate, arguing that grid operators failed to meet their legal obligation to provide connection to the location within a reasonable time frame.
The regulator ruled that the strike represented a valid exception under Swedish law, however, citing constitutional protections for industrial actions.
Tesla responded by appealing to the Administrative Court in Linköping, claiming it had the right to connection within a reasonable period, generally no more than two years. Tesla Sweden also argued that the country’s Electricity Act conflicts with EU law. The court rejected those arguments.
“The Administrative Court today finds that granting the company’s request in practice applies to the same thing as the blockade and that it would mean that the blockade would be ineffective.
“Such a decision would contradict the principle that labor market conflicts should be resolved to the greatest extent possible by the labor market parties, not by the state. The industrial action is also constitutionally protected,” Chief Councilor Ronny Idstrand stated.
The court also concluded that the Electricity Act does not conflict with EU regulations and that special reasons justified the extended delay.
While the ruling was unanimous, Tesla Sweden may appeal the decision to a higher administrative court.
News
Tesla China exports 50,644 vehicles in January, up sharply YoY
The figure also places Tesla China second among new energy vehicle exporters for the month, behind BYD.
Tesla China exported 50,644 vehicles in January, as per data released by the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA).
This marks a notable increase both year-on-year and month-on-month for the American EV maker’s Giga Shanghai-built Model 3 and Model Y. The figure also places Tesla China second among new energy vehicle exporters for the month, behind BYD.
The CPCA’s national passenger car market analysis report indicated that total New Energy Vehicle exports reached 286,000 units in January, up 103.6% from a year earlier. Battery electric vehicles accounted for 65% of those exports.
Within that total, Tesla China shipped 50,644 vehicles overseas. By comparison, exports of Giga Shanghai-built Model 3 and Model Y units totaled 29,535 units in January last year and just 3,328 units in December.
This suggests that Tesla China’s January 2026 exports were roughly 1.7 times higher than the same month a year ago and more than 15 times higher than December’s level, as noted in a TechWeb report.
BYD still led the January 2026 export rankings with 96,859 new energy passenger vehicles shipped overseas, though it should be noted that the automaker operates at least nine major production facilities in China, far outnumering Tesla. Overall, BYD’s factories in China have a domestic production capacity for up to 5.82 million units annually as of 2024.
Tesla China followed in second place, ahead of Geely, Chery, Leapmotor, SAIC Motor, and SAIC-GM-Wuling, each of which exported significant volumes during the month. Overall, new energy vehicles accounted for nearly half of China’s total passenger vehicle exports in January, hinting at strong overseas demand for electric cars produced in the country.
China remains one of Tesla China’s most important markets. Despite mostly competing with just two vehicles, both of which are premium priced, Tesla China is still proving quite competitive in the domestic electric vehicle market.
Tesla Model Y tops California vehicle sales despite Elon Musk backlash
Tesla Supercharger left offline as Swedish court backs union strike
