When it comes to the future of Tail 844, the SR-71 Blackbird that mysteriously disappeared from NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center, few people have more insights than Tim Conners. When he worked at NASA in the 1990s, Conners was the lead propulsion engineer for the agency’s Blackbird program. He worked extensively on 844 and has an intimate knowledge of what made the iconic aircraft tick. Now, he brings an insider perspective on NASA’s secretive work to get the Blackbird back in the air and speculates on what it would take to do so, as well as the famed jet’s possible flight test role for the agency after 27 years of dormancy.

Late last month, we wrote about how satellite imagery taken over Armstrong showed that Tail 844 had been missing since at least May. The revelation was first made by Steve Trimble, Aviation Week‘s defense editor and friend of TWZ. It came after NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman cryptically teased plans for a new high- and fast-flying X-plane with a silhouette of an aircraft that immediately drew comparisons to the Blackbird. Trimble reported just this week that NASA had been talking to ex-SR-71 program personnel about coming back to work on the aircraft. This confluence of events has led to rampant speculation about whether NASA was planning to resurrect the Blackbird and for what purpose?

In an exclusive interview with TWZ, Conners, now technical director for advanced weapons systems at Tiberius Aerospace, gave us his take on NASA’s Blackbird revelations and insights into what NASA is working on and how far along they are in the process.

Some of the questions and answers have been slightly edited for clarity.

Q: Tell me about your background with the SR-71 program. How did it begin? How long did it last? And what did you do?

A: So that basically fell in my lap when I was an engineer at NASA’s Dryden [Flight Research Center] back in the early ’90s when NASA took delivery of three of the airframes when the Air Force was retiring the fleet. So NASA got two A models and a trainer. Obviously, tail number 844, which is NASA’s designation, is the one that’s getting all of the attention right now. But those came to Dryden in the early ’90s. 

By luck of the draw, I was in the propulsion group. We were short-staffed for a number of reasons, and they needed an engineer on Blackbird. And I had been with NASA for about three or four years at that point, and I got tapped to prepare the NASA side of the mission for the upcoming research flights. So I had a few years to get familiar. That was a part-time job, by the way. I also owned the F-15 fleet at NASA as a propulsion engineer, and that was occupying a lot of my time, but it did give me an adequate amount of time to get familiar with the way that the airplane operated, at least from the propulsion standpoint. And then we began doing research missions in ’96. I left NASA in ’98, but I was able to support the program through two years of flight testing and all the years of preparation for those two years.

Q: Tell me more about your role with the Blackbirds.

A: I was lead propulsion engineer on the NASA side. So what NASA would do is they would assign disciplinary leads across from their industry and government counterparts. So Dryden’s disciplinary leads, their job was basically to make sure that any experimental packages were integrated safely with the airframe, and that we could execute the proposed test missions safely and successfully. I owned propulsion and I also owned performance. So if you recall the Lockheed Linear Aerospike rocket engine activity, that package weighed 20,000 to 25,000 pounds and was mounted externally on the back of the SR-71. That was a drag issue, obviously. So part of my role was to make sure that we could actually accelerate through the transonic drag rise with that package and get out to the target test conditions. 

Q: There is a tremendous amount of interest in seeing the Blackbird fly again. The biggest question seems to be why? What kinds of experiments or research would an SR-71 provide that couldn’t be done more effectively with a modern aircraft, rocket or unmanned vehicle? Can you walk us through some of the reasons NASA would like to see it in the skies again?

A: Yeah, that’s a question that everybody’s been asking. Why? I’m speculating, although I do have a good feel for where this is going. So bear with me. 

They probably are not going to do this for — or trying to do this — for aerodynamic reasons. You can do CFD [computational fluid dynamics]-based modeling in this speed regime all day long and very accurately in this day and age. It does not take a lot of time or money to do that. What you cannot do is an accurate representation of a new type of engine integrated into a high-speed airframe. You can do the conceptual modeling of it. Of course, it’s difficult to get the final installed answer, especially if it involves an engine that operates at long duration. That is where I think they’re going with this. I believe that they’re developing basically a high-speed engine test bed. That would make the most sense to me.

Q: That’s something you couldn’t do with a more modern aircraft or rocket or unmanned vehicle?

A: That’s a good question. But you know, probably two-thirds of that battle is just developing the airframe. It does depend on the size of the engine that you’re after. 

Obviously, if this were a Williams engine or that size class, you could get by with probably a bespoke drone to do your testing. That wouldn’t be that expensive. If your goal is to test something that’s man-rated or very large, like a J58-size engine, what better way to do it than use an airframe that’s already proven to fly at that speed?

Q: Were you asked to join a team at NASA tasked with getting a jet back in the air? Who else was asked, and what kind of team were they building?

A: I did not receive an offer. There was a tongue-in-cheek text that I got earlier in the year that said, ‘Hey, Conners, how would you like to help get the Blackbirds flying again?’ And that was from somebody who was positioned with inside information. That is where I first heard of this. This was back in spring, but nobody formally reached out to me.

I believe that the only one that’s been tagged so far, as far as a retiree, was Mike Relja. Mike was a crew chief on the Blackbird, and that makes sense that they would potentially want to pull on him. But there was no formal offer, and I tell you what: If somebody approached me to work it, I don’t think I could turn them down.

Q: Do you know where the idea for this project came from and who is in charge?

A: I don’t have an answer. I’d love to know as well.

Q: What can you tell me about this effort? What are the latest developments in this project that you know of?

A: So what I’m hearing is that they’re looking at doing power-on testing fairly soon. That’s pretty big. So of course that’s not engine power on. That’s external power applied to the airframe, seeing which systems still live, which ones don’t, and then moving from there. So that would be an expected first step. 

It’s an encouraging step. That means NASA would have gotten beyond cracking open all the bays, inspecting the interior, making sure that the thing at least passes visual inspection for airworthiness from that standpoint. 

Q: Have they actually gotten any systems working?

A: No, they’ve done the visual inspection, actually, putting electrons on the airframe. [To get systems working] would be the next step, but it is forthcoming, from what I understand.

Q: What is the timeline?

A: That’s supposed to happen within the next couple weeks.

Q: Really? Where is this work taking place?

A: That I do not know for sure. Although I assume it’s happening at [NASA’s] Armstrong [Flight Research Center].

Q: So what is going to happen?

A: That’s a good question. Let me tell you about what I heard more recently, and then you can begin to connect the dots. JP-7. People ask about the fuel. I think it’s pretty well known that NASA had a huge amount of JP-7 stockpiled that they received from the Air Force back in the early ’90s. So much that it was in a dedicated tank, like one of the giant jet fuel tanks at Edwards Air Force Base. You know, the tanks up on the ridge.

From what I understand, that supply unfortunately was discarded about 20 years ago, and JP-7 is a unique fuel. Obviously, low volatility. When I poked at what might be the way forward there, it didn’t sound like that was a showstopper. I got the impression that there’s been dialogue underway with refineries for a replacement or a surrogate that would work. So I went from being deflated, hearing that the fuel was gone, to being encouraged that potentially there was a surrogate workaround.

But that led to the question regarding the engines themselves, so the feedback there was more discouraging in that it looks like the engines are indeed unserviceable. I don’t believe that is based on an actual attempt to run them. It is based on inspection. Probably no surprise. They’ve sat idle, you know, for 27 years. That is what led to questions going back and forth regarding how the airframe would be powered. And that’s what led into where, if you connect the dots, that’s where the airframe would be used as an engine test bed. 

So different engines, they would have to be high-Mach bypass systems. We can speculate on which engine company might be developing those systems, but yeah, I don’t want to give it too much away because I don’t want us to lose the inside information that we got.

Q: Are they working on a completely different engine to power Blackbird?

A: I don’t know that for sure. I think if the J58s are not an option for powering the Blackbird, you either button it back up and walk away from it, or you go bring in engines that are already under development that we’re not privy to at this point in time. But there’s no other option. So what are we going to use? It’s not like we can slap in F100s or F110s. They’re not going to cut it.

Q: Obviously, restoring an aircraft sitting out in the elements for years into one able to withstand the rigors of Mach 3 flight is one hell of an undertaking. In your mind, what are the biggest hurdles to this endeavor?

A: Number one would be the engines for sure. Number two would be anything that’s made of elastomerics. Plastics, wiring. Covering connectors. All that stuff degrades and oxidizes with time. You can imagine what frayed wiring and broken wiring insulation – what kind of havoc that would create. What Blackbird has going for it is that all those casings and connectors were built for the rigor of sustained Mach 3.2 flight for an hour, an hour plus, so they are not going to deteriorate quickly. The question is: Have they deteriorated in 27 years? So, if the answer is not a significant amount, then we’ve probably addressed one of the biggest questions – other than the engines – regarding reviving the airplane. 

Q: Do you think NASA is going to attempt to just fly Tail 844 largely in its original configuration, or will they deeply modify it or build something new based on it?

A: Completely unknown. They definitely have the ability to modify the airframe, right? They did it before in the ’90s to carry the Linear Aerospike package. That was a huge undertaking on the airframe itself. They did it successfully. Armstrong still has a pretty deep bench in that area, so if they wanted to take on modifying the titanium structure, I think they could do it. 

But it’s a good question. Again, that would probably point to aerodynamic studies, and if it were me and my dollar as a taxpayer, I would lean on computational studies to get those answers. That’s what I tend to do in my day job is forego testing in lieu of computational when it involves external aero, but it’s when you do the integrated propulsion in this speed regime, that’s really when you need test data from the actual operating conditions. 

Q: As opposed to digital modeling?

A: Yes. For instance, say the aerodynamic databases for Blackbird are gone, which they might be. I know there are simple aerodynamic models that still exist, but like a true high-fidelity model that would go into a piloted simulator, that could probably be regenerated fairly quickly. Probably on the order of months computationally in this day and age. So I think simulation capability could be stood up in fairly short order. That, of course, will be foundational for the pilot training task.

Q: We’ll talk more about pilot training later, but first I want to ask about modernization. If NASA were to inject modernized features into the SR-71, what would you like to see? And what makes the most sense in terms of material science, avionics, propulsion and so on?

A: I’m not a materials expert. I think it would be really interesting to see how the airframe could be optimized using adaptive flight control capabilities. So, if the flight control system could be digitized, I think that would lead to some very interesting in-flight experiments. I doubt that that would be. I could be wrong, but if the goal is to get the airframe back up as a propulsion test bed, you don’t need to cut out the hydromechanical flight control system and replace it with a digital one. 

That all said, what I would like to see is what we talked about a few minutes ago, and that’s basically modern high-speed engine technology. So what could be done? The J58s were low operating pressure ratio systems. What could be done with a modern, digitally controlled, multistream, high-Mach engine, I think, would be truly trailblazing. 

One of the reasons why there’s interest in this speed regime, it was neglected for a number of years. The focus was on hypersonics. If you proposed anything going back, say, 15 years in the Mach 3.5 speed regime, it was ignored. The glitz and glamor was on hypersonics. Hypersonics is great tactically for certain scenarios, but the weaknesses of hypersonics are now becoming apparent. 

And as far as countermeasures, hypersonics still has a place. Don’t get me wrong, but every system cannot be hypersonic from an affordability standpoint. So, now you’ve seen it over the last, say, five years. A lot of systems are coming back on the scene that operate in the Mach 2 to Mach 4 regime, and there’s a reason they’re all fitting in there, right? You stay below the speed limit that requires more exotic metallics. You stay in the titanium regime. You can fly, of course, up to [Mach] 3.5 with brief excursions up to about [Mach] 4, so that is tactically relevant against a lot of military targets and defensive systems. So here it is. You know we now have a potential flying test bed that can carry engines in the J58 size class.

Q: How much could a project like this cost, and is it really economically feasible? How long do you think it could take?

A: I’ve been thinking that over, and I think it depends on who does it. I don’t want to disparage my former government brethren. I had great respect for the folks at NASA when I worked with them, but one of the reasons why I left the agency is because it was becoming so risk-averse. That was adding bloat to everything. And what we used to do quickly, we no longer could do quickly or cheaply at what was Dryden Flight Research Center, so that is what concerns me. 

If NASA could operate with the agility that it had, if Dryden/Armstrong could operate with the agility it had 30 years ago, they could do this work in probably a few years. I would say again, it would depend on what exactly they need to do to the airframe. If it’s to resurrect the airframe and bolt in new engines using existing interface hardpoints, that would go much, much more quickly than doing extensive airframe modifications.

Q: Given that 844 has been sitting idle since 1999, what would be the very first thing you would want to inspect or test before even considering putting it back in the air?

A: Exactly what I’m hearing the rumor is that they’re doing this. What is the condition of all the components in the airplane that are flowing electrons? Because if the entire airframe is shorted out, you know how it is. 

If you have a car where you’ve hooked up the battery cables backwards – I had a car once where somebody jumped in and did that. It ruined the car because I was chasing shorts constantly, constantly breaking down in the months that followed because the wiring was compromised, melted, bubbled all over the vehicle. And then it would get wet. You get shorts. That, I believe, is what one of the objectives of power-on testing is. To make sure continuity still exists, reliable continuity throughout the airframe. So that’s exactly the first step. 

I would say the second would be hydraulics. That vehicle is hydromechanical. So what is the state of the actuators and whatnot?

Q: And you said that work is taking place now?

A: It’s certainly being inspected. That was one of the reasons why they pulled it off of the display pad at Armstrong. But that work has been going on for a couple of months, and it certainly seems that there was at least reason to be encouraged and to go forward with this next step. Otherwise, they would have just towed it back to the parking spot.

Q: And the next step is testing the systems?

A: That is correct.

Q: We touched on this a little before, but how realistic is it to get an SR-71’s J58 engines operational again after nearly three decades of inactivity? What would worry you most about those engines? How many are left?

A: Well, that’s a good point. As far as [engines] that are readily available, there are several that are at the [Air Force Flight Test (AFFT) Museum at Edwards AFB]. I believe they’ve been stored outside. But if you consider all the museums around the world with Blackbirds on display, almost all of them have installed J58s, and there’s usually one sitting alongside the airframe on display, so there are plenty of engines. Whether or not they’re serviceable, that of course is the question. 

But probably the biggest problem with an engine – well, there are several with a gas turbine that sits unmoved for decades – it’s going to be that you’re going to flatten the bearings. Probably not visible to the eye, but rotating turbo machinery doesn’t like flats on the bearings. So for obvious vibration reasons, you got that. And you’ve got the seals. Seals are going to crack. Trapped fuel is going to turn to gunk and clog up lines. That engine was all hydromechanical, of course, or no digital controls on that because of the heat involved. So fuel hydraulics played a big role in that engine. 

There is likely a lot of goo in those lines. I believe that’s why they’ve essentially been written off as unserviceable. I was discouraged because one of the questions I asked that I didn’t get an answer to was: Did anybody try to run the engines or pull them apart? But I don’t even know if the instructions exist to unstack a J58 at this point. I’m sure it could be figured out with the right people, but you know how it is. Pulling something apart is a lot easier than putting it back together. 

Q: So there’s no manual for that anymore?

A: I don’t know if there’s a manual specific to that. Like I told Steve [Trimble] at Aviation Week, there certainly are operating manuals. You’ve probably seen the pilot’s manual for the SR-71A. It’s a beauty. There are a lot of copies online. You can get PDFs of those. They are very well-written, huge manuals. I know prints exist for the airplane. Those were in the keeping of the Edwards Museum. I believe those have been handed back over to NASA. So, it’s not like there’s a complete dearth of information.

When I was at NASA, I was the person who received everything that Pratt & Whitney had left on the J58s when the Air Force decommissioned the program, and that information was in two or three smallish boxes and consisted of hard copy code printout or printout of numerical data, along with some magnetic reels of code. It was not much. And I was told at the time the only reason I received that information was somebody missed it when the Air Force gave the destruct notice. It was under somebody’s desk, so it was not much in the way of knowledge transfer, unfortunately.

Q: What did you do with all that?

A: I left it behind in 1998 when I left NASA.

Q: What happened to it?

A: I have no idea. Hopefully, somebody scanned it. But again, that was J58 info, right? So if they’re going with a new engine, they’ll have the full digital models for those new systems. And I do believe that recreating the aerodynamic database, including inlet performance, that kind of data can all be regenerated fairly quickly with computational tools.

Q: We touched on this a little bit before, but how difficult would it be to reproduce the JP-7 fuel that powered the Blackbird? It would need designated tankers too, correct? 

A: So that was one of the questions I asked is whether or not that formulation exists still. The answer I got back was that essentially a refinery should be able to recreate a suitable surrogate. If you think about it, JP-7 was unique in that it had a very low volatility characteristic. 

What I’ve learned about Jet A from some of the ramjet work that I’ve been doing is that it has a ridiculously low volatility too, of course, by design. So I don’t know that JP-7 is that far apart from the chemical characteristics of a Jet A-class fuel, JP-8-type fuel. JP-8 was a significant change from JP-4, so the Air Force was using JP-4 in their fleet, and then moved to JP-8 to be consistent in the ’90s with the Navy with their formulations. That’s a lower volatility fuel, and at NASA we had to recharacterize the flight performance of all of our jets with JP-8, but it worked fine. 

We were concerned about operability – that we were going to have flameouts and engine relight and flight relay problems. Those did not materialize, so I don’t want to oversimplify it, but I am thinking that you might be able to take an existing Jet A and with the right additives knock down the volatility to a level that’s safe for flying in the Blackbird. 

Q: What would need to happen to have aerial refueling jets be able to handle fuel for the Blackbird?

A: There were dedicated JP-7 tankers for the Blackbird. I don’t know if they can take an existing system and flush it. It would depend on the formulation, right? JP-7 was notorious for its unseemly characteristics. It was toxic. 

I had a shirt that got dripped on when I was standing under the wing of the Blackbird once, and I had to throw it out. I could not get the stink out of that shirt from the JP-7. It was a weird fuel. So if you can get one that’s more aligned with the fuels used in the service, then I don’t believe that’s going to be a showstopper as far as tanker support, but you do know tanker support is going to be required for that airplane. 

Q: You said the JP-7 fuel stank. What did it smell like?

A: I just remember it turning my stomach. Like I kept smelling something as the day went on, and I reached over and saw a stain on my shoulder. I don’t recall what happened the rest of the day, but I just remember being repulsed by the odor and then not being able to get it out when I washed the shirt. 

Q: Beyond the fuel, the SR-71 depended on a huge ecosystem of specialized equipment, fluids, personnel and procedures. Which parts of that infrastructure would be hardest to recreate today?

A: That was something that Mike Relja pointed out when he talked to Steve Trimble. That’s a good one. You probably heard that the J58s were started with a start cart that was basically a bank of Buick 12-cylinder engines, all next to each other. It’s a beautiful-sounding system, but very unique. But what is starting, you know, other than you’re either doing a power takeoff via shaft, or you’re using compressed air. It depends on what the engine demands. So I think the start cart development would be fairly straightforward. 

But there is a lot of specialized equipment, like Mike pointed out, the wings when they’re split up, they are held in place by a specific scaffolding. The way the engines were craned out of the wing required special equipment. Pulling the inlet spike off that required a special cradle. Those are not insurmountable, but you don’t want to wait till the last minute to realize you need unique equipment. So it’s all got to be taken into consideration.

Q: Could existing SR-71s in museums realistically be used as sources of spare parts for 844, or would cannibalizing those aircraft create more problems than it solves? Were those airframes left structurally intact? 

A: I believe that was the agreement with the Blackbirds. If a museum were to put one on display, there was a certain expectation regarding care and maintenance. Not so much maintenance, but care and preservation. If you think about it, many of them are under [a] roof in climate-controlled facilities. I know several of them that are preserved like that, including one here in Tucson. That, of course, is the best place for preserving anything with elastomerics and plastic. So I think it’s encouraging that so many of them have been so well cared for. Again, it’s going to come down to which components, regardless of whether or not they’re indoor or outdoor, which components are going to fail first, and I believe that’s the exercise NASA is looking at. 

Then you’ve got to start beating down, chasing supply chain sources for some of this, and you know the nightmare that’s out there with supply chain and aerospace. So it’s not going to be an easy task. I don’t want to act like it is. I don’t think it’s insurmountable though.

Q: So these aircraft can be used as sources of spare parts?

A: Sure, absolutely.

Q: Is anyone with a Blackbird already contributing parts?

A: I know that the Edwards Air Museum is contributing what they can as far as spares and prints. I don’t know who else, although I believe the second NASA SR-71A went to the Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum in Oregon. I would expect them to be in the loop. 

(TWZ reached out to the Evergreen to find out what, if anything, it is contributing to this effort.)

Q: How difficult will it be for modern test pilots to fly Tail 844, or whatever aircraft is created from this project? What would actually be the hardest part of training a pilot to fly the aircraft today? Do you think they will convert it into an unmanned configuration?

A: Well, that would be a difficult airplane to convert to unmanned, unless it went with a digital backbone, and like I said, I think that would be an enormous undertaking. It’s not unheard of. NASA, along with McDonnell Douglas, converted a couple of F-15s to all-digital backbones before the F-15E program began. It can be done. It’s just expensive. It’s not easy. 

But the piloting task starts with a good simulator, right? The piloting task is absolutely a big deal. I saw it firsthand at Dryden. That said, it took a couple years, probably two. I would say that’s about right for the Dryden pilots, who are pretty good at what they do, to learn to fly the Blackbird safely, and that was with the use of the two-seat trainer, which we’re not going to have this time.

So I think the key to this happening is getting a digital sim together very quickly, and it wouldn’t surprise me if NASA has begun this process already. Getting that together, plus getting the former pilots who are still with us in the seat to make sure that it aligns with what they recall as far as the unique features of the airplane. 

I have 100 hours of stick time on the Air Force Blackbird simulator. I’m not a pilot, but I used to pre-fly the maneuvers for the pilots and NASA on the high-drag missions, so I’m familiar with the way the airplane flies up and away, and it is a bear to fly. It is not easy. So training is not insurmountable. Like I said, it takes a good, high-fidelity sim. NASA is expert at building those kinds of simulators, modular simulators quickly. In this day and age, we should be able to put a high-fidelity sim together fairly quickly for training. 

If you recall, the cockpit is an analog nightmare on a Blackbird. Breakers everywhere. Dials everywhere. I doubt that somebody suggested that we go with an all-digital cockpit. That would be so much work to do. But if we go for it with just a pure analog cockpit that we used previously, that’s going to require a lot of familiarity. I do believe that the training systems might still exist for that. It would just be for that airplane. It would just be getting them all cobbled back together.

Q: What made the Blackbird so difficult to fly?

A: It’s a low-G airframe, so you got to baby it. It’s easy to get an angle of attack out of range. And then with those chined surfaces, it’s easy to get a pitch-up with the airplane. That’s how I always managed to wreck it in the sim. I would let alpha get away from me.

Q: Do you know if any of the pilots have been recalled for this effort to get this thing flying again?

A: No, I don’t know.

Q: It has been close to 70 years since the A-12 Oxcart first flew. There had to have been other high-speed aircraft that at least came and went in the classified test environment. Considering all the work in hypersonics today, it isn’t hard to believe new platforms exist. Why would the SR-71 still have relevance here, and why not use one of those aircraft instead, if they exist? If they do, is it because the SR-71 is declassified? 

A: Yeah, that could very well be what we’re looking at here. I’ve had friends ask that question this week. We were talking about the SR-72. Where is that at? I don’t know. I know people who went to work on it years ago. I’ve never heard anything since. So it could be that that’s so deep black that there’s no way that platform could be used as a test asset. So I think it’s precisely what you said. The Blackbird’s no longer classified, and that it’s possible that the engines that might be used in Blackbird wouldn’t be classified either.

Q: Would any of those engines be applicable for this SR-71 reboot?

A: Certainly.

Q: Do you know if they exist anywhere?

A: No. But from what was leaked or hinted at regarding the size of the vehicle, it would seem that whatever was the power plant for that aircraft, it would be about the right size.

Q: What do you think generally about the renaissance of sorts in high-speed aerospace capabilities in recent years?

A: I worked on HAWC [Hypersonic Airbreathing Weapon Concept] at Raytheon, which became HACM [Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile]. One of the systems that I helped design was the inlet isolator used on HACM, which is not operational yet, but it will be. But it’s an air breather by Raytheon. That gave me a lot of exposure to the level of exquisite technology that’s required to field a system like that.

It is expensive. It’s difficult. Supply chain is a challenge. There’s a reason why they cost what they do per unit. So you see the push to develop lower-cost hypersonic systems like Castelion’s Blackbeard [lower-cost hypersonic missile]. It’s not an air breather. So I think it’s an easier problem than what we dealt with at Raytheon with an air breather. But nevertheless, it’s impressive that they’ve gotten a price point down to what they’ve gotten, so you see that happening in hypersonics. 

You’re kind of stuck in the same block of speed, but the price is dropping. And then meanwhile, you’ve got this massive group of munitions that are setting up camp in a Mach 2 to Mach 4 speed regime for reasons I mentioned. Those are running much cheaper per shot and per effect, which is why that’s happening. So that you give up something on survivability by pulling down into that speed range, but the price point allows you to volley at such a level that you overwhelm the defensive systems.

Q: If an SR-71 took to the skies again, would it not be one of the highest-profile aviation moments in a generation? It would certainly capture the imagination of many young and old. What do you think about the social aspect of all this?

A: I have yet to find anybody who isn’t excited by the prospect. Certainly, everybody within aviation thinks it’s cool. Some of my family who don’t know much about airplanes – they all think it’s cool. Everybody thinks it’s just super. That said, everybody also wonders why we’re doing it. But what’s funny is everybody still says, ‘Let’s do it anyway because it’s such an iconic airplane, beautiful airplane, an inspiration.’ Hopefully, there would be a good reason to spend the money. But I think even if it’s a bad reason, everybody wants it to take to the skies again.

Q: If you were a betting man, Tim, what would you say are the odds of this thing flying again?

A: I would give it a 25% chance.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Former SR-71 Engineer Talks NASA’s Blackbird Revival Program appeared first on TWZ.

For aerospace aficionados, it’s like we have entered into an alternate dream reality. The idea that we are seriously talking about the possibility of bringing back the SR-71 Blackbird to flight status is hard to comprehend, but amazingly this is where we are at. The biggest question I am getting about all this is why? We touched on the likely primary answer to that in our original reporting — high-speed is back in tactical vogue, and the Blackbird can sustain it in a realm of great interest, between Mach 3 and 4, and do it over and over again. It can also carry very large things and even launch them off its back at those extreme speeds. But those are not the only potential reasons for taking on such a gargantuan, high-profile, and costly technical challenge. Learning from the journey itself could be just as valuable as the actual flight test data a revived SR-71 produces.

Let me explain.

The Blackbird was as close to alien tech as it gets over 60 years ago, and even today, we have nothing like it in known operation. Yet it has been dormant for nearly three decades. Much of the expertise that built, supported, and operated it is sadly gone. But the exercises of reverse engineering and leveraging breakthroughs in additive manufacturing and rapid prototyping, as well as injecting new material sciences, avionics, propulsion and other technologies where applicable, and above all else, building the digital toolkit to make it all happen as fast and efficiently as it can be done, are all of extreme learning value.

I would not be surprised if a ‘digital twin’ is being created right now of the SR-71 using NASA’s SR-71 tail number 844 — the jet in question that has mysteriously disappeared from its display pad. Once such a model exists, breakthroughs in digital engineering can be brought to bear to see how fast the program can be accelerated, both in terms of development and flight testing. This could include not only getting the SR-71 back in the air, but improving its performance and reliability, possibly substantially, using all the new technologies we have today. It’s even possible a clone of sorts leveraging all these advances could be built using digital engineering tools.

This is not necessarily an unprecedented concept. Just look at similar exploratory engineering programs like the X-55. But when it comes to partially reverse-engineering an airframe you have no support for, and few, if any, spare parts, America’s highly-secretive foreign materiel exploitation (FME) community could potentially lend a hand.

Operating in the shadows, they have been able to not only get totally foreign aircraft divorced from American supply chains pieced back together and flying, but they sustained them for years in total secrecy. They also did this long before the advent of rapid prototyping and digital engineering assets that we have today. Imagine what they can do now. They could be a top source for NASA to pull in to help in its far less sensitive but uniquely similar endeavor. This is just one example of many of how government and industry could come together to support and benefit from the SR-71 resurrection program.

Now, about those supply chains. During its heyday, the SR-71’s logistical tail was one of the most exotic ever created. It supported the Blackbird, as well as its progenitor, the A-12, for the better part of half a century. Reestablishing this supply chain would be a highly challenging, but rewarding exercise that could have major impacts across the aerospace industry, as well as others. So, how can we use all the capabilities we have now to jump-start the sustainment of the highest-performing air vehicle from an era of slide rules and drafting tables?

The idea of putting aircraft out of production back into production is not a foreign one to the U.S. military, either. NASA’s SR-71 program could serve as a pathfinder for better evaluating such proposals and their costs, while pushing the envelope forward on exactly how it can be done efficiently. The same can be said for simply keeping aging aircraft (or any vehicle or system for that matter) operating longer and for cheaper, by applying cutting-edge technologies and practices. NASA can create the playbook for doing so, and that playbook could end up being more valuable than the flight testing a reborn SR-71 does.

I think it’s fairly clear that we have lost something when it comes to aerospace engineering as of late. With all our advances and incredible tools even legendary Skunk Works founder Kelly Johnson could have only dreamed of, it seems like we have to relearn even simple lessons from decades ago, and oftentimes that can be a very expensive, time consuming, and even deadly process. In some ways, it seems like we have gone backward, or at least stalled out in certain engineering areas. The simple things become hard and hard things have become simpler. How did they do so much protractors and pencils way back then? Getting a Blackbird flying again can help explore and possibly answer this and other questions, and help mitigate these deficiencies going forward, as well.

Even if NASA’s dormant SR-71 never ends up getting back in the air, even attempting such a challenge could be considered a success. Doing so could identify core areas across multiple disciplines that could be improved and areas of existing technology that could be better exploited for a whole array of tasks. It can also develop and refine new technologies in the process. All this sits at the core of NASA’s mission, and there is no vehicle on Earth that could drive people and organizations to give it their all for such a comeback dream as the Blackbird. It’s even possible that we could see corporations or even individuals help foot the bill for it.

And yes, all these benefits need to be weighed against cost. Surely there is a limit to how much the government can invest in such a program. Now corporations and individuals, that’s a different story.

So, yes, the main goal of this effort will likely be high-speed flight testing, but so much can be learned in the journey to get there that it must be quantified in the ‘business case’ for reviving the Blackbird.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

The post Lessons Learned From Getting An SR-71 In The Air Again May Be As Valuable As Its Flight Test Data appeared first on TWZ.

---

---

Cape Canaveral Space Force Station is getting lasers that can zap drones intruding into its airspace. When installed, the new directed energy defense system will be part of a much larger effort to protect the spaceport against drone incursions, a spokesperson for Space Launch Delta 45 (SLD 45) told us.

The idea is to ensure the safety of launches and to keep prying eyes away from an installation full of secrets about America’s military and commercial space efforts. Companies like SpaceX, United Launch Alliance, Blue Origin and Relativity Space use the installation for space launches. The base defense modernization effort comes as the Cape Canaveral region is inundated with drone incursions. There were hundreds last year.

“As the world’s premier spaceport continues to support an unprecedented launch tempo for national security and commercial missions, securing critical launch infrastructure from low-altitude aerial threats remains a top operational priority,” the spokesperson explained. “The ongoing security modernization integrates detection, tracking, and defensive capabilities to include directed energy systems. These will provide security forces with real-time situational awareness and the necessary tools to safeguard personnel, launch complexes, and national security payloads.”

The spokesperson did not have a timeline for when the directed energy system will be operational. Florida Today was the first to report that lasers will make up this defensive system.

Col. Brian Chatman, who commands Space Launch Delta 45, told the publication that the facility is “bringing on a directed-energy system that can do a kinetic kill against UASs (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) that are coming into the area that are having nefarious intent.”

“The Air Force Research Laboratory [AFRL]-tested system has been proven to be able to safely bring down a drone,” Florida Today noted. “This directed-energy system uses lasers to shoot down any drone that flies into restricted areas.”

Chatman didn’t name the specific system to Florida Today and the SLD 45 spokesperson declined to say.

The following video shows one such AFRL-tested system that has been used in combat before.

For the spaceport, being able to use lasers is even more important than it is for other locations needing protection from drones. That’s because the traditional method of jamming radio frequencies to interfere with drone connections to controllers could damage spacecraft.

“If you start blasting a bunch of RF energy you run into potential challenges,” Chatman explained. “You don’t want that.”

There is good reason for Chatman to be concerned about drones. The spaceport has been subjected to many unauthorized incursions, the spokesperson told us. However, there were no statistics immediately available on how many or whether they occurred during launches. There were 500 unauthorized drone flights over the adjacent Port Canaveral in 2025, Port Canaveral CEO Capt. John Murray said.

In addition, on Sept. 18, a Chinese tourist pleaded guilty to a federal misdemeanor charge after flying a drone in restricted airspace above NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in late July. KSC is located across the Banana River from the space station.

It is unclear if the new laser system will also protect the skies over KSC. The spokesperson did not immediately know and is checking into it.

That tourist, Xiaodong He, flew a drone that videotaped the installation, according to federal documents. The drone got within 1.56 miles of pad 39B, from where the next crewed lunar flight is expected to launch in 2028.

Encompassing about 25 square miles, Cape Canaveral Space Force Station is a large, unpopulated, open area with a long Atlantic Ocean shoreline. The station’s physical layout allows many vectors for drone incursions, and what’s housed there makes it a logical target for a nefarious actor.

The systems being prepared for launch and launched at the sprawling facility are extremely valuable and can take many years to build, costing billions. When they are out on the pad or being transported around, the rockets are massive tubes packed with high explosives that would cause a devastating secondary explosion if struck.

Even disrupting launches there due to a successful or even attempted attack could have major national security impacts.

Maybe the place that needs them most. Use your imagination with this one.

Probably scary how little they have. https://t.co/cBww4vlB9n

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) September 19, 2026

The move to bring directed energy systems to protect the spaceport comes as the military is investing heavily in these systems to counter drones. Late last month, for instance, troops from the Joint Task Force-Southern Border (JTF-SB) employed an Army Multipurpose High Energy Laser (AMP-HEL) system during an operation dubbed Ardent Vanguard. The AMP-HEL was used “to engage and defeat three hostile UAS, determined to be such based on their use in direct support of activities posing a physical threat to U.S. military personnel and CBP [Customs and Border Protection] partners,” according to a media release at the time.

The shootdown was part of the U.S. government’s ongoing effort to counter drones being flown by Mexican drug cartels.

The military is seeking to expand its ability to counter drones with directed-energy weapons. In May, the Defense Department and Joint Interagency Task Force 401 selected five installations to participate in a directed-energy counter-unmanned aircraft systems pilot program required by the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act.

“This initiative will accelerate the fielding and evaluation of advanced directed energy capabilities to protect critical infrastructure, military installations and homeland missions,” the Pentagon explained. “The locations were deliberately selected to support rigorous testing and operational assessments across diverse environments and mission sets.”  

The Pentagon selected two “key southern border installations” for this program: Fort Huachuca, Arizona; and Fort Bliss, Texas. It also tabbed Naval Base Kitsap, Washington; Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota; and Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri.

Though the Pentagon is pressing forward with making directed energy a key part of counter-drone efforts, laser weapons have limitations. These include their short-term magazine depth being limited to how many successive shots they can fire before thermal loads require the system to cool down. Energy supply can also be a limiting factor. Additionally, laser systems don’t function as well in heavy cloud cover and other inclement weather.

“We can only shoot down with a laser what we can see,” Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Brig. Gen. Yaniv Rotem once said about the IDF’s Iron Beam laser defense system, which began downing enemy drones in combat last year.

You can see the Iron Beam’s first claimed kills in the following video.

A World First — Combat-Proven Laser Defense, Powered by Rafael

For the first time in history, high-power laser systems have been used to intercept aerial threats in combat.
This unprecedented breakthrough took place during the Swords of Iron War — with Rafael’s advanced… pic.twitter.com/B3D6UdCJvE

— Rafael Advanced Defense Systems (@RAFAELdefense) May 28, 2025

At the same time, a laser weapon of this kind is very much a point-defense weapon, with its short range meaning that multiple systems will be needed to provide coverage of a significant area. In some situations, even a single, large military base like Cape Canaveral Space Force Station might require more than one to provide full defensive coverage.

In addition, there have been concerns about the safety of the systems and the authorities required to use them in the homeland.

These issues came to a head in February, when the U.S. military used AeroVironment’s LOCUST directed energy weapon to shoot down a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) drone over southwest Texas. The friendly fire incident spurred expanded airspace restrictions over the Fort Hancock area that lasted for four months. It also gave credence to the FAA’S concerns about the operational deployment of counter-drone laser weapons along the border. The same system was used to fire at suspected Mexican cartel drones flying across the southern border into Texas two weeks earlier, which resulted in a large airspace closure, general confusion and major headlines.

Safety concerns about using directed energy weapons, and especially kinetic ones, to take down drones in the U.S. have been a major factor in why they haven’t been previously used in this role. Almost two years ago, officials at U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), which has coordinating authority for counter-drone efforts in the U.S., said the use of such weapons was not yet on the table. The reason is that they can create dangerous or otherwise serious collateral effects that are less of a concern in a war zone.

That the U.S. Space Force is bringing in a laser system to protect some of the nation’s most important and secret military assets is a strong indication that these concerns are being overcome.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Laser Weapons Will Be Deployed At Cape Canaveral Spaceport To Take Down Drones appeared first on TWZ.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman has left something of a mystery hanging in the air after showing the silhouette of an aircraft that immediately drew comparisons to the famed SR-71 Blackbird during a recent speech. Isaacman pushed back on a direct link to the SR-71, but said his agency is working hard to get “back in the business of flying high and fast again.”

The silhouette, accompanied by the tagline “Rebuilding our X-plane portfolio,” was among the backdrops for Isaacman’s remarks at the annual All-In Summit in Los Angeles, California, last week.

The SR-71’s iconic shape is defined by its long, sword-like profile, pronounced chines, and deeply swept wings, and huge spiked engine nacelles with canted fins on top. Its distinctive geometry is reflected in the silhouette, which shows a broad, highly blended aircraft from an unusual head-on angle.

“In the service of the first A [aeronautics] in NASA, we are rebuilding our X-plane fleet. The X-59 is researching quiet supersonic flight, but it’s just the beginning,” the head of NASA told attendees. “As NASA recommits to flight test and works alongside industry to push the boundaries of airframe and propulsion design, it will not be long before NASA once again is flying as high and as fast as we had in decades past, and then even more.”

Isaacman’s full speech at the All-In Summit, as well as his remarks during a live interview that followed immediately afterward, are contained in the video below. The high-speed aircraft silhouette is first seen at around the 12:40-mark in the runtime, and is then further discussed at around the 28:39-mark.

Chamath Palihapitiya, co-host of the All-In Podcast and one of the hosts of the summit, asked Isaacman directly about the silhouette during the fireside chat after his speech.

“You showed a picture of the [SR-71] Blackbird up there,” Palihapitiya said at one point, before Isaacman interjected.

“You sure that’s a Blackbird?” Isaacman said.

“Well, ok. What was that picture you showed up there?” Palihapitiya asked.

“Like I said, NASA is getting back in the business of flying high and fast again,” Isaacman said in response, and declined to further elaborate.

Whether or not the silhouette reflects a real design that is in development now is unclear. TWZ has reached out to NASA for more information.

Though the Mach-3+-capable SR-71 is primarily remembered as a Cold War-era intelligence-gathering aircraft, NASA operated several Blackbirds in support of aeronautical research efforts for years. The agency was actually the last operator of the type, flying SR-71s until 1999.

Lockheed Martin openly pitched a successor to the SR-71, dubbed the SR-72, in the late 2010s. There was even talk of building a flying fighter jet-sized demonstrator to prove out key technologies.

Discussion about the SR-72, or a further evolution of that concept, resurfaced in the early 2020s after Lockheed Martin helped craft a fictional hypersonic aircraft called Darkstar for the blockbuster movie Top Gun: Maverick.

Exactly where Lockheed’s SR-72 ambitions sit today is unclear. After talking constantly about the potential program for a number of years, it went silent, which could indicate the program had moved forward deep in classification.

NASA has worked with other supersonic and hypersonic X-planes in the past, as well. This includes reusable space planes, as well as aircraft designed to fly within the Earth’s atmosphere.

“I mean, that doesn’t seem like a space vehicle. It seems like an Earth-air vehicle,” All-In’s Palihapitiya noted during his chat with Isaacman about the silhouette he showed.

“Yeah. The first ‘A’ in NASA is our aeronautics portfolio,” Isaacman said in response, before highlighting a host of contributions his agency has made to advanced military and commercial developments over the years. “You know what I want to do? I want to get back to the radical airframe and engine designs like we were always supposed to do.”

As mentioned, Isaacman also highlighted the X-59 Quiet Supersonic Technology experimental test aircraft, or QueSST, at the summit, but made clear the goal is to go well beyond that design. The QueSST jet is the centerpiece of a program now to investigate technologies that could eventually enable commercial supersonic flight over land with a substantially reduced sonic boom.

The X-59 conducted its first supersonic test flight, reaching Mach 1.1, in June. NASA’s test program aims to eventually push the aircraft up to a speed of Mach 1.4. This is significantly below the record-breaking mark of approximately Mach 3.3 that the SR-71 clocked back in the mid-1970s, but it was never designed for extreme speed as testing its sonic signature was its primary goal.

As for bringing a Blackbird back into operation for high-speed testing, which is now at the forefront of military aeronautics (and civilian to a lesser degree) after decades of being sidelined, that would be a very challenging operation. The SR-71s are long retired and have been placed in museums and other display areas. While the Pentagon could technically claw some of them back from their ‘on loan’ status, reconstituting even one of them would be a major undertaking as the entire support ecosystem that once sustained them has been gone for decades. Still, having a Mach 3+ capable jet for testing would be a highly relevant tool in a new age of high-speed flight exploration.

On the other hand, building a new test aircraft that aims higher and faster than the SR-71, but may be based on its ‘DNA,’ is certainly possible. Such an aircraft could leverage material science, avionics, flight controls, and engines that are seven decades more modern than its progenitor. Technology demonstrators in this class could also already exist in the classified domain. NASA could possibly assume ownership of one after the Pentagon declassifies it, as well.

Regardless of how such an exotic aircraft is obtained, one of the biggest differentiating factors could be that a NASA aircraft is piloted by a human onboard, instead of it being a drone, but an uncrewed aircraft is possible too.

Isaacman has been very open about its interest in and support for new X-plane developments. On only his second day on the job, in December of last year, he called for revamping the agency’s aeronautics program and stated that “I’d love to see an expanded X-plane portfolio” during a town hall with NASA staff.

“If NASA has a healthy X-plane portfolio, we should be flying experimental aircraft so routinely that the second flight of a single X-plane is not newsworthy,” he wrote in a post on X in March of this year. “For example, the two NASA X-29 aircraft flew 422 flights between 1984 and 1991. That period also overlapped with the development of two X-31 aircraft, which together flew about 580 times.”

NASA’s proposed FY2027 budget also spelled out rapid, cost-effective flight experimentation as an explicit priority. Budget documents specifically highlight work toward new advances in supersonic and hypersonic flight technologies “that will revolutionize air transportation, strengthen national security capabilities, and position America to lead the future of high-speed flight,” as well.

Furthermore, in April, NASA outlined a new Aeronautics Flight Accelerator (AFA) initiative. At that time, the agency put out a call for “input on technologies, concepts, and flight test campaigns suitable for cost shared maturation leading to flight within the next three years.” Stated areas of interest included “subsonic (including vertical lift), supersonic, and hypersonic flight technologies.”

It is important to reiterate that we still do not know whether the silhouette Isaacman showed at the All-In Summit represents an active development effort and, if so, how mature it might be. Government agencies and contractors routinely use concept art to illustrate an area of research or communicate a future vision. Such artwork does not necessarily correspond to a funded aircraft, an active prototype, or even a specific configuration.

At the same time, under Isaacman, NASA is clearly pushing toward new X-planes. NASA’s X-plane programs have historically served as a way to investigate technologies that conventional aircraft programs were not prepared to risk. The resulting aircraft have explored everything from supersonic and hypersonic flight to unconventional configurations and new propulsion concepts.

At the very least, evoking the visual legacy of the SR-71 Blackbird, coupled with Isaacman’s comments, provides a clear indication that NASA is interested in returning to the high-speed flight regime as part of its future plans.

Update: 2:04 PM ET –

NASA has now provided TWZ with the following statement in response to our queries for more information:

“NASA has a long history of building and flying experimental aircraft that push the boundaries of what is possible. As Administrator Isaacman has said, we want to see more X-planes flying in the years ahead, developing the technologies that will allow us to fly higher, farther, and faster than we have in decades. We look forward to sharing more as those efforts progress.“

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The post Did NASA’s Administrator Just Tease An SR-71 Blackbird Follow-On X-Plane? (Updated) appeared first on TWZ.

U.S. Space Force’s top officer has shared new details about his service’s use of electronic warfare capabilities during Operation Epic Fury against Iran earlier this year. This underscores how space is steadily becoming an arena where conflict actually occurs, and the implications this has for forces operating inside and outside of the Earth’s atmosphere.

Chief of Space Operations Gen. Douglas Schiess highlighted the actions of a member of the 42nd Electromagnetic Warfare Combat Detachment (EWCD) in support of Epic Fury during a keynote speech earlier this morning. Schiess’ remarks came at the Air & Space Forces Association’s (AFA) 2026 Air, Space & Cyber Conference, at which TWZ is in attendance. This is his first major engagement since taking over as head of Space Force less than two weeks ago.

“During Operation Epic Fury, our components, notably at U.S. Central Command and Space Command, with support from our components at European Command and Pacific Command, demonstrated that Guardians [the official term for uniformed Space Force personnel] are not supporting from the sidelines as a nice-to-have [sic], but we are delivering space power directly into the fight as a need-to-have,” Schiess said. “One of those impressive Guardians is Specialist Gray, who hails from Tampa, Florida. She joined the Space Force just two years ago, but listen to the impact she [has] made in her short term already.”

“She deployed to the CENTCOM AOR [Central Command area of responsibility] as a part of the 42nd Electronic Warfare Detachment [sic], and within hours of OEF kicking off, she received a top priority target package with one critical objective: reconfigure her weapon system and execute critical non-kinetic fires,” he continued. “She locked onto the target, optimized her weapon system, and waged electromagnetic warfare against a determined adversary. Even as ‘Alarm Red’ sirens were blaring, and incoming missiles targeted her site, she courageously held the line, protecting forces, denying adversary capability, and delivering space effects, until her commander had to literally pull her from the console to safety.”

“Specialist Gray is just one of the outstanding members of the entire enterprise of dedicated guardians, including the acquisition professionals that developed and fielded the weapon system that she operated, the intel Guardians that developed the targeting package that she used, and the cyber guardians who ensured communication, connectivity, and network defense for the command and control, the guardian instructors who trained her for combat, and the list goes on and on,” the Chief of Space Operations added.

Schiess did not name the system in question or elaborate further on how it was employed. However, previously released pictures of elements of the 42nd EWCD in the Middle East have shown personnel working with trailer-mounted multi-band antennas that have been associated in the past with variants of the Counter Communications System (CCS). CCS is a family of ground-based electronic warfare jammers primarily designed to disrupt enemy space-based communications capabilities. Prior to yesterday, CCS was the U.S. military’s only publicly acknowledged anti-satellite weapon. Space Force has now confirmed it also has weapons in orbit, which we will come back to later on.

The 42nd Electromagnetic Warfare Combat Detachment has been operating in the Middle East since at least 2024 under the umbrella of Space Force’s main headquarters in the region, U.S. Space Forces – Central (SPACECENT). President Donald Trump briefly called attention to the detachment’s “cutting-edge defense activities” during a Christmas Eve conference call with deployed service members last year.

“Sometimes we have to be within the footprint of the satellite, and so that’s why Guardians go into harm’s way,” Gen. Schiess did tell TWZ and other outlets at a roundtable after his speech this morning when asked for more details about the 42nd EWCD’s role in Operation Epic Fury, and what lessons Space Force has been learning from the conflict more broadly.

“Electromagnetic warfare was a big part of that, but also satellite communications,” he added. “The ability to keep communications, obviously GPS and PNT [positioning, navigation, and timing], were important there.”

“And then, really, missile warning and missile tracking was [sic] incredibly important. Both [Air Force Chief of Staff] Gen. Wilsbach and I talked about ‘Red Alarm’ situations,” the Chief of Space Operations continued. “Being able to tell our forces to be able to take cover was extremely important. And as we’ve seen from Ukraine to Iran, the amount of missiles and the amount of things, the folks that are doing that each and every day are incredible, and they are saving lives.”

Gen. Schiess’ anecdote about Specialist Gray and the 42nd EWCD did highlight how Iran, especially in the opening phases of the conflict earlier this year, was able to deal real blows to U.S. and allied facilities and forces across the Middle East. Iranian missiles, drones, and other capabilities were able to damage and/or destroy a variety of high-value assets, including aircraft and radars, and cause hundreds of casualties, as TWZ has drawn attention to on several occasions in the past. This has already been a sobering wake-up call with serious implications for potential future conflicts against larger and even more capability opponents, especially China.

“I think the whole joint force is learning a lot from Operation Epic Fury, the previous operation there, on exactly what needs to be in underground facilities, [and] what maybe can we do from remote locations,” the head of Space Force said at the roundtable today. “You could also look at what can we do from space to do some of those things? And so we’re looking at all those [lessons learned].”

Gen. Schiess mentioning subterranean facilities and remote operations is particularly notable. Even before Operation Epic Fury began, the U.S. Air Force had been working to expand options for directing operations in the Middle East from a command center in the United States. The service had also been looking to push certain command and control functions at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar underground. Al Udeid was among the many bases Iran subsequently targeted.

Operation Epic Fury has already added new fuel to a larger ongoing debate about balancing U.S. military base defense priorities globally, including the relative value of investing in new physically hardened infrastructure. TWZ has been following these discussions very closely in recent years. The conflict with Iran has raised serious questions about future operations of any kind at certain bases across the Middle East, and there have been reports that a larger reorientation of America’s force posture in the region could be coming.

For Space Force, operations against Iran have provided a broader opportunity for the service to demonstrate its active role in forward-deployed operations. That, in turn, has generated its own lessons learned beyond just steps needed to help better protect units in the field.

This extends to “reconstitution [of forces] in a combat environment, the logistics and the importance of that relationship with TRANSCOM [U.S. Transportation Command] and to be able to get supplies and replenishment into the theater,” Chief Master Sergeant of the Space Force John Bentivegna also said today, speaking alongside Gen. Schiess at the roundtable. That is “something we haven’t really worked on before. So definitely, it was a great lesson learned.”

Space-based capabilities including early warning, general intelligence gathering, weapons guidance, near-real-time communications, and more, are already absolutely central to U.S. military operations. America’s long-standing dominance in space is also steadily being eroded, with China, in particular, surging ahead in the deployment of new satellites to support a host of mission requirements, including intelligence-gathering and long-range targeting. The ability to leverage space is also proliferating to smaller adversaries, including Iran.

In addition, as mentioned, the space domain is no longer limited to just supporting operations within the atmosphere, but is a place where real engagements happen. The U.S. military is now capable of generating so-called counter-space effects using forces and assets within the atmosphere as well as in orbit, as was just disclosed yesterday.

Overall, Gen. Douglas Schiess’ comments today about the role played by Specialist Gray and the 42nd EWCD during Operation Epic Fury are indicative of not just what is to come in future operations, but how the Space Force is already engaged in combat missions now.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post New Details On How Space Force Has Waged Electronic Warfare Against Iran appeared first on TWZ.

Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink made a bombshell admission this morning, disclosing that there are on-orbit weapons deployed right now to protect America’s interests in space. Those weapons support a Space Control mission set, and the U.S. Space Force has now also shared additional details about that directly with TWZ.

Meink first made mention of what he described as “on-orbit space control weapons” during his keynote speech earlier today at the Air & Space Forces Association’s (AFA) 2026 Air, Space & Cyber Conference, at which TWZ is in attendance. As head of the Department of the Air Force, Meink serves as the top civilian overseeing both the Air Force and the Space Force. Space-based weapons have historically been a very sensitive topic for the U.S. military, with much discussion over the decades about whether such capabilities could already exist to varying degrees in the American arsenal. There has already been a dramatic shift in this regard in recent years, with the head of U.S. Space Command (SPACECOM) openly declaring the acquisition of new anti-satellite weapons to be a top priority just last month.

“Today, we continue to ensure we remain ready to meet the challenges of evolving threats, wherever they exist,” Meink said during his keynote address. “This is why the United States now has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the joint force against hostile adversary action.”

“That phrase was very well thought out. So whatever I said before is what I say again,” he said when asked if he could elaborate in any way on those capabilities at a question-and-answer session immediately following his speech. “It is critically important that we maintain our dominance not only in the air, but in space, and so we’ve had to take steps to make sure that when we’re threatened, we can take care of that.”

“Not going to go into specifics on the type of weapon,” Meink said when asked again if he could elaborate at a press roundtable with TWZ and other outlets on the sidelines of the Air, Space & Cyber Conference today. “Just like in air dominance, we need to maintain dominance in space as it becomes more and more important to how we function, how we operate militarily, and economically [and] civilian-wise.”

“There’s a lot of factors that go into how we talk about these things. We spend a lot of time talking about how we’re going to talk about these things,” Meink added at the roundtable when asked about why this disclosure was being made now and its implications for deterring adversaries.

“It is important from a deterrence perspective, but on the other hand, me talking about the details of what we’re doing would actually not benefit that deterrence,” he continued. “So I’m not going to talk about the specifics of what we’re doing, whether we’ve tested or not tested, or anything else.”

TWZ had separately reached out for more information after Meink made his initial remarks this morning.

“It is longstanding policy that the U.S. will protect and defend the Joint Force through all domains,” a Space Force spokesperson subsequently told us. “We are increasing readiness against existing threats, and the U.S. has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the Joint Force against hostile adversary action.”

“Space control encapsulates the mission areas required to contest and control the space domain – employing kinetic and non-kinetic means to affect adversary capabilities through disruption, degradation and even destruction, if necessary,” they continued. “These capabilities can be employed for offensive and defensive purposes at the direction of combatant commands. U.S. military operations are conducted in compliance with international law, including the Outer Space Treaty and LOAC [the Law of Armed Conflict].”

The Outer Space Treaty, which came into force in 1967, prohibits the United States and other signatories from placing nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in orbit. It does not impose limits on the deployment of conventional weaponry. After receiving this initial statement from Space Force, TWZ followed up to ask whether the service was confirming that it has kinetic (e.g. physical interceptors) and non-kinetic space control weapons (e.g. electronic warfare jammers) now, and that any such weapons could be employed both offensively and defensively.

“We are confirming that the United States has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the Joint Force against hostile adversary actions,” the Space Force spokesperson said in response. “Beyond that, we will not discuss specific operational methods, payloads, technical characteristics, or employment concepts.”

“As the Space Force continues to mature, our public discussion is intended to clarify doctrine and mission sets, not disclose sensitive operational details,” they added. “What is important is that the U.S. Space Force is committed to the long-term safety, security, and sustainability of the space domain, and our operations are guided by longstanding principles of professional military behavior and international law. That commitment remains central as space operations continue to mature and normalize.”

There are a wide range of means by which a platform on-orbit can attack another or otherwise defend against incoming threats. Not all of those options involve effects that are destructive or even irreversible, either. For instance, a laser could be used to blind optics on a target temporarily without damaging them. Electronic warfare suites could similarly disrupt a threat without causing any kind of permanent harm. Doing so could help provide extra time for a friendly asset to maneuver out of danger. There are, of course, also capabilities that do seek to damage and/or destroy a target, such as physical interceptors, grappling arms, aerosols that can be sprayed on optics and solar panels, or even just using one satellite as a kinetic weapon to smash into something else.

So-called counter-space weapons, as a broad category, are also not limited to space-based capabilities. There are also direct-ascent anti-satellite (ASAT) interceptors launched from the surface and other capabilities deployed from within the Earth’s atmosphere. Prior to today, the only acknowledged anti-satellite weapons the U.S. military had in inventory were ground-based electronic warfare systems. In 2022, under President Joe Biden, the U.S. government had announced a self-imposed moratorium on destructive direct ascent anti-satellite weapons testing. Still, this would not have precluded development of those capabilities using other means, and it’s not even clear if that policy is still in place.

It is important to further note here that plans for new space-based anti-missile interceptors are at the core of the Trump administration’s Golden Dome missile defense initiative.

There is certainly no debate about the absolutely vital role that space-based capabilities – including early warning, general intelligence gathering, weapons guidance, near-real-time communications, and more – play in U.S. military operations today. Similarly, it is well-established at this point that America’s principal global competitors and potential adversaries, especially China and Russia, have been actively developing and fielding increasingly more threatening anti-satellite capabilities. China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has also been dramatically expanding its own space-based capabilities, steadily eroding the U.S. military’s historic dominance in this domain and presenting new threats to U.S. forces.

“From the broadest perspective, maybe the most critical characteristic of the responsive and adaptive national security space architecture called for in the President’s Ensuring American Space Superiority executive order is that survivability matters at least as much as performance,” U.S. Space Force Gen. Stephen Whiting, head of SPACECOM, said in August at the annual Space & Missile Defense (SMD) Symposium. “In space, there is no safe harbor. You can’t dig a trench or build a shield. Our satellites are consistently or predictably in an opponent’s weapons engagement zone. And we can build the most high-performing, exquisite satellites in human history, but if they depend on fragile, targetable supporting infrastructure, their performance will drop to zero on the first day of the next war.”

Whiting publicly declared at that time that having “credible, acknowledged” options for countering enemy capabilities in space, to include damaging or even destroying them, was a key priority for deterring hostile action and surviving if a major fight in orbit were to break out.

“Protective measures on satellites is just like thinking about protective measures on aircraft, okay? And we’re working through that,” Lt. Gen. Gregory Gagnon, head of the Space Force’s Combat Forces Command (CFC), also told TWZ and others more recently at a roundtable at AFA’s Warfare Symposium back in February. “I won’t provide specifics, because I want those protective measures to work, right? I don’t want to tell Beijing and Moscow what I’ve done.”

“But protecting and defending satellites can’t simply be done by protect and defend. You can’t run away from a bully forever. Sometimes you got to turn around and punch,” Gagnon continued. “So protect and defend, although necessary, is insufficient to deliver space control. We also need, as part of our joint force, the ability to attack.”

Meink’s remarks today put Gagnon’s prior comments, in particular, in a whole new light.

The Secretary of the Air Force’s new disclosure has prompted additional questions beyond just what actual weapon systems the U.S. military has actually fielded in space. There are long-standing concerns about the potentially wide-reaching ramifications of increasingly weaponizing space. As Meink himself noted today, space-based communications and other capabilities are increasingly central to daily life, in general, and widespread, long-term disruption could have serious negative economic and other impacts.

At the roundtable today, Meink pushed back on a question about these concerns, citing Chinese and Russian anti-satellite developments.

“Is there a question in the room by anybody about whether or not the Chinese and Russians have been developing these sorts of weapons?” he said. “We are focused on making sure we can protect ourselves and operate in that environment.”

“Depends on where you sit, right, you know? But to say that it’s the responsibility for the U.S. government to protect its citizens from emerging threats makes perfect sense to me,” now-retired Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman said last year when asked a similar question in the context of the Golden Dome initiative’s plans for space-based interceptors. “And we clearly see a country like the PRC [People’s Republic of China] investing heavily in these kinds of threats, whether it’s hypersonic [weapons], whether it’s threats from space. And so now it’s time for the U.S. government to step up to the responsibilities to protect American citizens from those threats.”

Though many questions remain, it is now clear that the U.S. military is not just planning to, but has already fielded at least some weapon systems in orbit as the threat ecosystem outside the Earth’s atmosphere continues to expand and evolve.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post U.S. Admits It Has Weapons In Orbit appeared first on TWZ.

A handful of aviation photographers got a surprise eyeful of a very sleek and large aircraft silhouette on Thursday night at Long Beach Airport. One of them was Ricky Schol, who saw the mysterious airframe emerge from a hangar, prompting a double take. It was the first time in his 16 years of aviation photography at the historic airport he’d ever seen anything like it.

“I was driving home past my local airport Thursday evening here in Southern California when I saw a bright light coming from a hangar I haven’t seen open in a long time, so I doubled back to check it out,” Schol told us. “I was blown away when I pulled over and saw the future in front of my eyes. I had no clue what I was looking at. I jumped out of my vehicle and started taking pictures immediately.”

“At first glance I thought it was an F-117 Nighthawk when driving by,” said Schol, a plumber by trade. “That’s why I doubled back to see. And to my surprise I saw something I’ve never seen before, having no cockpit. It left me with a very curious feeling.”

Schol said he did some asking around and learned more details. He would soon learn that the mysterious aircraft design was the RAVN X, an aircraft meant to launch payloads into space, made by Aevum Aerospace of Huntsville, Alabama. Schol was kind enough to share some of the photos he took of the aircraft, which he said he saw from about 100 feet in the distance. You can find his work on Instagram at @aggressoraviation_.

As you can see from the images below, the aircraft bears the FAA N-Number N567RX, which has been reserved by Aevum to an address at the airport, but it appears to be a mockup — one we have likely seen before.

A mockup of the drone was introduced online with great fanfare in 2021 and described at the time by company CEO Jay Skylus as the “mothership” for a two-stage rocket able to carry a payload of just over 1,000 pounds. 

From our story when the RAVN X was unveiled: “The twin-engine Ravn X drone — described by the company as the first stage of the system — reportedly weighs 55,000 pounds, is 80 feet long, and has a wingspan of 60 feet — roughly the size of an A-5 Vigilante. The sleek drone… has seemingly been tailored for speed.” 

During the mockup roll-out, the company described what we noted back then was a “very ambitious, if not almost bizarre timeline” for getting Ravn X into the air. The plan was to start with “vehicle-level testing” to obtain the required airworthiness certification and launch licensing for operations, a process that should take 18 months, Skylus claimed. From there, Aevum planned to secure airworthiness certification for the first-stage drone from the Federal Aviation Administration. 

Following that, the next step was to commence orbital launch tests from Cecil Spaceport in Jacksonville, Florida, by late 2021. 

It is unclear whether Aevum achieved any of its goals. There are no details on the company website and the most recent information about RAVN X is from Gunter’s Space Page, a website that tracks launches.

“In December 2020 Aevum rolled out a mock-up of the Ravn-X carrier plane (although claimed to be a real prototype), but no further activities have been noticed so far,” noted Gunter’s Space Page. “It is doubtful, that any real hardware has been produced so far. By August 2024, all activities seem to have stopped.”

We reached out to Skylus and Aevum for more details.

Given that RAVN X has all but disappeared from public notice, Schol and a few other photographers at the airport caught a rare glimpse.

“I was there from the time they pulled it out to the time they pulled it in,” he told us. “They lined it up on the runway. It moved a little bit, but not much.”

Schol said he didn’t hear the engines or see any exhaust.

“I don’t know exactly what they were testing or trying to accomplish that night,” he proffered.

Mockups can be modified for limited ground tests and other important work, which could be the case here. Regardless, RAVN X does appear to still be alive as a program.

If we find out any details, we will pass them along.

UPDATE: 7:12 PM Eastern Sept. 8:

In posts on X, Skylus said Aevum “conducted Test 2 of Ravn X SN0 early this morning. Ravn X completed its first fully autonomous taxi. ~37 minutes of autonomy. We’re reviewing the telemetry and test data now and will share more as soon as I can..”

@aevumspace conducted Test 2 of Ravn X SN0 early this morning. Ravn X completed its first fully autonomous taxi. ~37 minutes of autonomy. We’re reviewing the telemetry and test data now and will share more as soon as I can.

— Jay Skylus (@jayskylus) September 8, 2026

He also clarified that the aircraft is “currently operating in a development ground-test landing gear configuration. The flight landing gear assemblies are already in our hangar and will be integrated during a near-term test phase. The current campaign is focused on validating our AI and autonomy stack in real-world operation; validating steering, GNC, and the V1 electric propulsion/braking system; and collecting real-world data used to continuously train and improve our AI. V2 of the electric propulsion/braking system is already in development for subsequent testing.”

On its website, the company teases an “Aevum Autonomy Unveiling” scheduled to take place on Nov. 19. However, there are no details about what is being unveiled.

For clarity: @aevumspace Ravn X SN0 is currently operating in a development ground-test landing gear configuration. The flight landing gear assemblies are already in our hangar and will be integrated during a near-term test phase. The current campaign is focused on validating our…

— Jay Skylus (@jayskylus) September 8, 2026

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Mysterious Black Jet That Emerged At Long Beach Airport Identified (Updated) appeared first on TWZ.

The Meteosat Third Generation Imager 2 satellite (MTG-I2) has successfully passed its first critical post-launch milestones, completing the first full Meteosat Third Generation constellation in orbit.

MTG-I2 lifts off on board an Ariane 6 rocket from Europe’s Spaceport in French Guiana on 27 August 2026. Credit: Arianespace livestream.

The imager satellite MTG-I2 is safely in orbit and operating as expected following its successful launch today at 22:11 CEST on board an Ariane 6 rocket from Europe’s Spaceport in French Guiana.

Our teams have established communication with the spacecraft, which has also deployed its solar panels to ensure its autonomous production of energy. MTG-I2 is in perfect shape to start its Launch and Early Operations Phase that will bring it to a higher orbit, 36 000km above Earth over the following two weeks, where a longer period of calibration and validation of its instruments will begin.

This summer’s extreme weather and wildfires have underlined the importance of timely observations for weather monitoring and emergency response. MTG-I2 will provide more rapidly updated observations over Europe through EUMETSAT’s rapid scan service, refreshing imagery every 2.5 minutes. This will give forecasters a much timelier view of fast-developing weather systems, helping national meteorological services identify hazardous developments sooner and support timely warnings for severe storms, hail, damaging winds and flash floods.

Its dedicated fire-detection channels will also help identify and characterise active fires, while the frequent imagery will support closer monitoring of how fires and associated smoke develop.

MTG-I2 joins Meteosat-12, the first imager launched in December 2022, and MTG-S1, which was launched in July 2025 and is expected to become operational before the end of 2026. Together, the two imagers and the sounder satellite will form the first full operational MTG constellation.

Phil Evans, Director-General of EUMETSAT, said: “With MTG-I2, we are unlocking the complete capabilities of this extraordinary European system.

“In particular, MTG-I2 will enable much more frequent observations over Europe, giving forecasters a more continuous view of rapidly developing weather and helping national meteorological services provide timely and reliable warnings.

“The Meteosat Third Generation system is the most sophisticated and innovative geostationary meteorological system in the world, and a major European achievement. It is already delivering huge benefits to forecasters and users. At its heart is EUMETSAT, working with ESA and European industry to deliver this new generation of weather satellites and the services built around them. EUMETSAT will operate and maintain the full system throughout its lifetime, delivering reliable data and services to its Member States and users worldwide.”

More frequent, higher-resolution observations

As the second imaging satellite in the constellation, MTG-I2 will use its Flexible Combined Imager (FCI) to deliver EUMETSAT’s rapid scan service over Europe and Northern Africa, alongside the 10-minute full disc scan service provided by Meteosat-12.

The instrument will provide state-of-the-art observations twice as frequently as the rapid-scan service of the previous satellite generation. Combined with four high-resolution channels providing detail down to 500 meters, this will allow forecasters to track fast-developing weather in greater detail and at much shorter intervals.

With power and communications established, EUMETSAT teams will now guide the satellite towards its operational position, activate its systems and begin preparations for commissioning and operational service.

For further updates on MTG-I2, visit EUMETSAT’s launch hub, which features news, interviews, and insights into the satellite’s journey.

Find all relevant information, biographies of speakers, videos and testimonials on our press kit.

About EUMETSAT – Trusted in Space. Essential on Earth.

Since 1986, EUMETSAT, Europe’s meteorological satellite agency, has monitored weather and climate from space. From its headquarters in Darmstadt, Germany, it operates a fleet of satellites observing the Earth system and delivers real-time data and imagery to its 30 member states to help protect communities and support critical sectors. Four Meteosat satellites in geostationary orbit provide continuous observations of fast developing weather events, while two polar-orbiting Metop satellites deliver data critical for forecasts up to 10 days ahead. EUMETSAT also supports European sovereignty policies, operating services under the Copernicus programme and leading development and management of the data lake for the Destination Earth initiative. For more information, visit the EUMETSAT website.

More than a century before Albert Einstein revolutionized physics with his theory of general relativity, and nearly two centuries before astronomers accepted the existence of black holes, an English clergyman and scientist named John Michell proposed a startling idea. In 1783, Michell suggested that some stars might possess such immense gravity that even light could not escape from them. These invisible objects, which he called "dark stars," bear a remarkable resemblance to what we now know as black holes.

Visualisation of a black hole. Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center/Jeremy Schnittman

NASA is starting to explore options to fill the gaps that will be left by the eventual retirement of its iconic T-38 Talons. Since the 1960s, NASA has been using the jets to support astronaut training and as chase planes. However, the Talons are aging, supportability is already a problem, and challenges to sustain them further are expected to grow as the U.S. Air Force replaces its T-38 fleet with new T-7A Red Hawks.

The Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas, put out a contracting notice today seeking information about potential T-38 successors. NASA currently has 25 Talons in its inventory, according to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) online database.

“NASA JSC is conducting market research to obtain industry information regarding availability, capability, schedule, sustainment models, and cost efficacy for modern high-performance jet aircraft that could be used in evaluation and an evaluation program for supporting NASA’s astronaut SFRT [Spaceflight Readiness Training] requirements,” the notice explains. “NASA has operated the T-38N fleet in support of astronaut SFRT for several decades. With the U.S. Air Force planning to retire the T‑38 fleet in the 2030-2035 timeframe, NASA is evaluating options to transition to a more modern high-performance aircraft.”

The T-38N variant is specific to NASA and distinct from the T-38A/B/C variants the Air Force currently operates. The U.S. Naval Test Pilot School also has a handful of T-38Cs. Both the N and C variants are based on the original T-38A, which first entered Air Force service in 1961. The Air Force bailed the first Talons to NASA three years later.

The N models have received various upgrades over the years, including the integration of new modern ‘glass cockpits’ with digital displays starting in the 1990s. As of 2011, compared to contemporary C variants, “the T-38N aircraft includes differences in communications and navigation, such as the addition of weather radar, a data link weather system, the terrain avoidance and warning system, the terminal collision avoidance system, GPS with localizer performance and vertical guidance approach capability, and redesigned electrical, inlet, ejector nozzle, and flight management systems,” according to a report from the National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Now, “NASA is seeking information on existing, production, or near-production high-performance jet aircraft capable of supporting SFRT,” per today’s contracting notice from the JSC. “NASA is not restricting industry responses to a specific performance class or aircraft design heritage.”

The notice does provide the following list of desired characteristics:

• “High reliability with established maintenance documentation”
• “Self-starting engine capability”
• “Performance comparable to a modern jet trainer/light fighter aircraft”
• “Capability to support dynamic maneuvering, formation flying, and cross-country navigation”
• “Dual-seat, dual-control configuration (tandem or side-by-side)”
• “Modern avionics compatible with instrument flight operations”
• “Aircraft capable of being single-pilot qualified from either seat is highly desired”

“Prior to any fleet transition, NASA seeks to conduct a limited-scope evaluation program using a small number of modern aircraft,” the notice adds. “This evaluation program is not a full fleet buy or replacement. It is intended to operate a small number of aircraft within JSC’s existing operational framework to assess compatibility, logistics, cost efficacy, and training impact.”

Furthermore, “NASA anticipates evaluating a small number of aircraft over a multi-year period,” it continues. “NASA requests information on potential procurement options such as lease, lease-to-own, barter, or other arrangements due to limited upfront procurement funding.”

NASA is looking to be solely responsible for flight operations of the jets, but is expecting contractors to handle maintenance, whether the aircraft are government-owned or not.

The contracting notice does also say that “NASA is open to operating the aircraft under reasonable flight hour limits, maneuver restrictions, or operational envelopes consistent with contractor recommendations.”

Just what kind of limits and restrictions NASA might be willing to accept is unclear. The entire reason for operating the T-38s now is to offer a high-performance platform with a good degree of maneuverability to support the SRFT requirements. These are attributes that are also valuable when flying as a chase plane and otherwise supporting flight research and test activities.

NASA certainly seems to be willing to consider a wide range of potential operations, both in terms of aircraft and operating schemes. When Boeing won the Air Force’s T-X competition to replace the T-38 with what became the T-7A, TWZ noted the possibility that other Talon operators, including NASA, could follow suit.

There are a wide variety of other jet trainers available on the open market. This includes Korea Aerospace Industries’ (KAI) T-50, a design capable of supersonic flight that has been offered on the U.S. market before through a partnership with Lockheed Martin. A version of the T-50 was one of the losing entrants in the Air Force’s T-X competition.

There are several private companies that operate relevant jet trainer types to provide flight training and ‘red air’ aggressor services, too. NASA’s current administrator, Jared Isaacman, founded one of those companies, Draken International, making him once the owner of the world’s largest private air force. He has also personally bought various demilitarized fighters and jet trainers over the years. During this year’s July 4th celebrations in Washington, D.C., he somewhat controversially flew over the nation’s capital in one of the F-5 Tiger II jets that he owns.

With expectations that funding for new jet trainers will be limited, at least initially, NASA could well seek to enter into some kind of new arrangement with the Air Force (or another branch of the U.S. military) just like it did in the 1960s. It’s also worth noting here that the T-7A program continues to suffer significant delays due to technical issues and other factors. This has led the Air Force to repeatedly push back its own T-38 replacement timeline. The service’s original goal was to reach initial operational capability with the Red Hawk in October of last year, but it is now targeting August 2027 to achieve that milestone. A full-rate production decision is now not expected to come until January 2029. So, the prospect of NASA actually getting T-7s anytime before the USAF gets all the jets it badly needs is questionable.

There are also no indications that NASA’s SFRT requirements will slow in the meantime, either. If anything, these training demands could grow as work continues toward the resumption of crewed missions to the Moon under the Artemis program. The Artemis IV mission, currently scheduled for 2028, is set to be the first time astronauts have set foot on the lunar surface since Apollo 17 in 1972.

From the wording of today’s contracting notice from JSC, NASA is still some years away from making a final decision on what will come after the T-38N, but the hunt is now on.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The post NASA’s Hunt To Replace Its Iconic T-38 Talon Jets Kicks Off appeared first on TWZ.

Astronomy, our window into the rest of the universe, happens in the dark. Planets, stars and galaxies – all the mysteries of the cosmos – only reveal themselves at night. But the night sky may be getting much brighter, thanks to an American company with a plan to conquer darkness itself by sending 50,000 giant mirrors into space.

Astronomers are panicking.

It is an “existential threat” to optical astronomy, says the European Southern Observatory. A “disastrous” idea that will “permanently scar” the night sky, according to the Royal Astronomical Society. The American Astronomical Society told Nature it “would probably mean the end of ground-based astronomy, or optical astronomy, at least.”

Sthabile Kolwa agrees. “It will take away a very crucial part of our civilization,” she tells The Atlas. Kolwa, a senior lecturer in astronomy at the University of South Africa, studies the life cycles of galaxies, but today her concerns are more immediate. “It might come to this, that we just have to find them in the parking lot and say, ‘Hey, what are you guys doing? You’re going to ruin science for us.’ ”

Like Uber, but for the sun

The parking lot in question is in Hawthorne, California, outside the headquarters of Reflect Orbital. They call themselves The Sunlight Company. The start-up is celebrating: Earlier this month, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved the launch of Eärendil-1, likely in a few months time.

This satellite, named for a character in JRR Tolkien’s The Silmarillion, will unfurl an 18m x 18m mirror in low Earth orbit. It’s designed to reflect sunlight onto the dark side of the earth, lighting a 5km2 patch of land with the strength of four full moons.

It is a proof of concept.

By 2035, Reflect Orbital wants 50,000 of its mirrors in space, delivering illumination “comparable to daylight” on demand to paying customers (“sunlight is the new oil,” says chief executive Ben Nowack). The company says this will allow solar panels to generate clean energy overnight; provide “safer, evenly-lit streets” to cities that pay for it; and keep construction sites and farms working 24/7.

There will be an app, of course, offering “sunlight as a service” – lighting up the night will be as easy as ordering an Uber.

Clean, renewable energy is at the heart of the company’s vision, a spokesperson told The Atlas in a statement. Reflect Orbital declined to respond to specific queries and said it is in constant dialogue with astronomers, scientists and environmental researchers to mitigate the impact of the light pollution: “We are able to dim the brightness of the service and turn it off at any stage. We control where the light shines when serving an authorised customer. Most people and most places will never see this light. It is precise, targeted and customers will require permits to receive the service.”

Circadian arrhythmia

A new research paper, published in May, challenges Reflect Orbital’s position. Its author, the European Southern Observatory’s Oliver Hainault, concluded that the company’s 50,000 satellites would increase the background brightness of the sky by 300% – even when their mirrors are pointed somewhere else. This, coupled with a proposal from Elon Musk’s SpaceX to build vast data centres in space, would go “beyond the limit” of what astronomy can withstand.

What that means, in practice, is that the images from ground-based telescopes will be dramatically less useful, marred by streaks of light from passing satellites. The most distant light sources won’t be visible at all.

This will obscure evidence of other galaxies, hinder research into black holes and other cosmic phenomena, and potentially prevent early warnings of asteroid approaches. Cutting-edge astronomy will only be possible from space-based telescopes like the James Webb and the Hubble – access to which is already massively oversubscribed, and subject to political interference.

The night sky will look different to the naked eye, too. “The next time you’re away from urban light pollution, spend some time outdoors after dark and enjoy the view of the Milky Way and the constellations that have inspired awe since humankind woke to consciousness. Chances are those views are not here to stay forever,” wrote journalist Tereza Pultarova for Space.com.

Running out of space

The night sky is already a lot brighter than it was 150 years ago, when light bulbs started to become commonplace. According to Dark Sky International, a US-based nonprofit that advocates against light pollution, 80% of Earth’s human population already lives under some form of sky glow, most of which is generated on land. This has forced astronomers to seek out “dark sky places,” like the Atacama Desert in Chile or the Upper Karoo in South Africa, for their telescopes.

Humans can adapt to less darkness. But it is much harder for animals and ecosystems that have evolved alongside predictable rhythms of day and night. Nocturnal predators lose the ability to hunt; sea turtle babies can’t find their way to the sea; migratory birds are thrown hopelessly off course; and moths expend all their energy helplessly chasing artificial light sources.

“It’s almost like we are on a mission to obliterate natural darkness from earth,” said Ruskin Hartley, Dark Sky’s chief executive. “And now rather than do it street by street and bulb by bulb, let’s do it from space.”

Space is, in theory, protected by the Outer Space Treaty, a 1967 agreement signed by 110 countries, including all the major space superpowers. It states that “space is the province of all mankind." But that’s not what’s actually happening, Hartley argues. “In the US, it’s the most wealthy, most powerful individuals who are gobbling up as much of that orbital space as they can before someone else can get that opportunity” – with China, Russia and Europe all scrambling too for a greater presence in low Earth orbit.

“Who gets to choose that we light up the night sky? Who gets to make that decision?” Ruskin asks. In the US, it is the FCC’s job to decide what satellites are allowed in space. But it has said that assessing the impact of light pollution or environmental damage is not within its remit. Instead, it wants to slash regulation so American companies can take advantage of the “space industrial revolution.”

And Reflect Orbital has rich and powerful backers. Earlier this year, it secured a $1.5-million contract from the US air force, hinting at possible military applications for its mirrors. Last year, it raised $20-million from three venture capital firms, including Sequoia Capital, one of the biggest investors in Silicon Valley. Sequoia also owns a multibillion-dollar stake in SpaceX, which has its own plans for low earth orbit.

There are already more than 10,000 Starlink satellites up there, giving Elon Musk unprecedented influence over global communications. The company wants to launch one million more satellites over the next few years to build a network of space-based data centres. In addition to the light pollution, astronomers worry the potential for collisions will increase dramatically, as will risks to the ozone layer.

A brighter future

On her blog Higher Dimensions, the astronomy professor Janna Levin contemplates our brighter future. “It is quite possible that the hot glow of the swarm of data satellites will saturate the night, washing out the stars from our perspective on Earth. We’ll look up into the sky and instead of Zeus transformed into a swan outlined in a constellation of a few stars, the machine gods will literally loom above us, glowing with radiant heat, making declarations, predicting the weather, forecasting then determining our fate.”

Kolwa, the South African astronomy lecturer, offers a different metaphor: that of empires “colonizing low Earth orbit.” This was an ambition of one of the most infamous imperialists of them all, Cecil John Rhodes, who said that he looked up at the stars and thought: “I would annex the planets if I could; I often think of that. It makes me sad to see them so clear and yet so far.”

But it hasn’t been colonized just yet.

“I’m still trying to figure out what we can do, what responsibility we have as scientists,” says Kolwa. “How could we engage our communities to stand up to these corporations and say no? We must keep our night skies dark, as dark as possible.”

The post Darkness is losing its war with the light appeared first on Coda Story.

This content is for members only. Visit the site and log in/register to read.

Around a century ago, astronomers believed our Milky Way encompassed the entire universe. Then Henrietta Swan Leavitt’s work on Cepheid variable stars and Edwin Hubble’s observations revealed that the mysterious “nebulae” scattered across the night sky were actually entire galaxies beyond our own. This discovery forever changed humanity’s view of the cosmos. Today, powerful observatories […]

The post 10 Amazing Explanations for Cosmic Conundrums appeared first on Listverse.