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 updated its Robotaxi app so riders can pick which vehicle they want before they book. The latest in-app screens now show two options side by side: the two-seat Cybercab and the four-seat Model Y.
A screenshot circulating Thursday shows the change in practice. In Austin, a rider could choose a gold Cybercab for two people or a Model Y for four. Tesla’s updated description calls Cybercab “our first purpose-built autonomous vehicle,” designed for safety, accessibility, and comfort, and says the lineup is available only through the Robotaxi app.
Tesla has updated their Robotaxi page in the App Store. You’ll be able to select if you want a Cybercab or Model Y Robotaxi.
“Our Robotaxi vehicle lineup now includes Cybercab, our first purpose-built autonomous vehicle. Designed for safety, accessibility and comfort, Cybercab… pic.twitter.com/Jff4klilDr
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 3, 2026
The distinction is more than cosmetic, and it’s important to note that Robotaxi refers to the platform, while Cybercab refers to a vehicle.
Model Y Robotaxis have carried the service since it opened in Austin in mid-2025 and later expanded to Dallas, Houston, and parts of Florida. Those vehicles are converted production SUVs that still have steering wheels and pedals.
Cybercab is different. It has no driver controls, butterfly doors, a low seat height meant to work with wheelchairs, extra trunk space for assistive devices, and braille on the handles. Tesla has registered dozens of the two-seaters with Texas regulators in the days leading up to its September 3 Austin event.
Giving riders a choice lets Tesla match the vehicle to the trip. Most rides involve one or two people, which is where Cybercab is meant to be cheaper and more efficient to operate. Groups of three or four, or anyone who needs more space, can still request a Model Y.
The same app handles booking, payment, cabin settings, and, on Cybercab, features such as phone-based door opening and in-cabin voice controls.
The update does not mean every city suddenly has both cars available. Cybercab support is listed for Austin first, and the purpose-built fleet is still small compared with the existing Model Y roster. Even so, the app change marks a shift from a single-vehicle pilot to a mixed fleet.
Riders can now choose between the compact, purpose-built robotaxi and the familiar SUV that launched the service.
Tesla Cybercab sightings are broadening far and wide, well outside of downtown Austin, Texas, with autonomy in focus as the company plans to launch the all-electric, two-seater this evening in the Lone Star State.
Tesla is set to launch Cybercab to a small group of people this evening in a dedicated event in Austin, Texas. Public details on the event are relatively slim.
However, Tesla’s focus on Cybercab falls well outside of the downtown Austin area and is expanding well across the United States as things continue to move quickly with the company’s autonomous efforts in 2026. Today, various images of Cybercab fleets in interesting locations have started to circulate.
The most notable is a fleet of at least 20 Cybercabs at Miami International Airport in Florida. Spotted last night, the fleet is expansive and is indicative of a looming release of Cybercabs once regulatory boxes are checked off.
Tesla has already been operating the Robotaxi platform in Miami for several months, but this Cybercab fleet at the airport could be joining the ride-hailing platform as approvals arrive:
20+ Cybercabs spotted near Miami international airport. pic.twitter.com/ORLsw8yFhf
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 3, 2026
Another fleet of Cybercabs was spotted at the Devon, PA showroom just outside of Philadelphia. We have seen several Cybercab units testing around the Philadelphia Metro Area, which is interesting considering Tesla does not have any active Robotaxi geofence in Pennsylvania.
Cybercab at the Devon location in PA has multiplied over the weekend. Seeing a few more test vehicles in the lot 👀 pic.twitter.com/DhJT4P1EkU
— Billy (@billykyle) August 22, 2026
Philadelphia would be an ideal location to test ride-hailing due to its dense tourist population, large, sprawling city layout, and to compete with other ride-hailing companies that operate in the city.
Expansive fleets of Cybercabs will be popping up in and around major cities throughout the rest of the year, if we were betting on it. Tesla has made it obvious that the Cybercab rollout will be aggressive and fast-paced, but within reason. Tesla is still prioritizing safety, so these testing phases will likely go on for some period of time before more members of the public are able to snag a Cybercab for a personal chariot.
The Tesla Model Y L is arguably the most hyped trim of the all-electric crossover, other than the Performance configuration that comes with white-knuckle speed and sports car-level handling.
However, it is not all perfect. Tesla owners in China who took delivery of the Model Y L, denoted with an L to highlight its longer wheelbase, are experiencing what they are referring to as “collapsing” of the rear wheels, as suspension issues appear to be an issue with some of the builds.
🚨 Model Y L owners in China report rear suspension sag
• Six-seat long-wheelbase Y. Shanghai. On sale since August 2025
• Owners say the rear tire-to-arch gap shrinks after mileage or a full load. Some cases after about 9,000 km loaded. Others near 30,000 km
• Tesla service… pic.twitter.com/Lr6i5Tbi07— Joe Hansen (@joehansen) September 1, 2026
The gap between the wheel arch and tire has narrowed to the point that “not even a single finger” could fit, according to a report from Car News China. The failures are not tied to a specific mileage, as one owner said that after just 9,000 kilometers (5,600 miles), they noticed the suspension issue when their car was fully loaded.
Another one had the issue at 30,000 kilometers (18,640 miles) and noticed that the wheel gap shrank to two fingers, so not as drastic as the person who reported a similar issue at 9,000 km.
Tesla Model Y L is gaining momentum in China’s premium segment
Along with the visual recognition of the issue, others are saying the sagging is causing abnormal wear on the inside of the tires. Extra weight and instant torque already provide additional stress on the tires in electric vehicles during normal operation, so it is no surprise that this is another complaint.
There has been no recall issued by Tesla, and the company has not yet publicly acknowledged the issue.
Some are suggesting that owners use a “finger test” to self-diagnose whether there is an issue with the suspension. There should be four fingers between the tire and the wheel well; anything less than that starts to get dicey.
Tesla Robotaxi riders will face the best dilemma when booking a ride
Tesla Cybercab sightings broaden well outside of Austin with autonomy in focus
