Thread

NASA asked several former SR-71A staffers to help secret restart

327 points · 403 comments · ilamont

scrumper · 1790779923 · focus · HN ↗
The general tone here seems to be against the effort, but separate the circus from the ringmaster and there is a lot to like here.
Having a manned, very high altitude, very fast research plane is undoubtedly useful for all sorts of development purposes.
But more than that, we are as a civilization doing a bad job of preserving cutting edge expertise from the past. We keep letting entire areas of engineering and technology die out without really trying to preserve them even though we know at some point they will come in useful. The skills, processes, even institutional confidence developed in just trying to get an SR-71 flying again will teach us a lot about resurrecting other such dead ends. Aerospace in particular is full of them. That will, for sure, get us out of trouble or speed up something we need at some unknown point in the future. I'd think of it more as developing a general capability than the world's most expensive vintage aircraft hobby.
1. runjake · 1790780542 · focus · HN ↗
  Look, I'm certified as the world's biggest SR-71 fan. As a kid, I saw it fly a number of times, got to see it up close, and had a family member who worked as an engineer on the program. I believe it may have even been this Blackbird, 844. It impacted me so much that I later went on to work on my own black and other military aircraft.
  I'm assuming that, if this rumor is true, somebody in the Trump campaign forced somebody at NASA to do this out of some misguided nostalgia. My hope is that if they're going to resurrect the Blackbird, they'll at least retrofit modern engines into the thing.
  But there are much more modern, cost-effective ways to build very-high-altitude, very-fast aircraft. I'm doubtful that going manned is the right approach. It takes a lot of weight and space to carry a person and the required life support systems. That capacity could be better utilized for more fuel and sensors.
  There's better technology that's far cheaper to maintain and operate. And you could potentially get hypersonic, or at least near-hypersonic, performance.
  1. randycupertino · 1790783791 · focus · HN ↗
    > somebody in the Trump campaign forced somebody at NASA to do this out of some misguided nostalgia.
    Trump is a huge fan of Top Gun, there is an article he is nitpicking current aicraft carrier design and pushing them to revert to old tech steam powered hydrolic liftoffs because he thinks it looks cooler. <a href="https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/donald-trump-navy-steam-catapult-obsession-top-gun-magnets.html" rel="nofollow">https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/donald-trump-navy-st...
    <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/13/trump-aircraft-carriers-steam-catapults" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/13/trump-aircra...
    He also nitpicks where the towers should be located on aircraft carriers and wants them to look more like the ones from WWII: <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/08/15/navy-weighs-major-warship-redesign-match-trumps-preferences/" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/08/15/...
    <a href="https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-to-order-redesign-of-aircraft-carriers-because-they-dont-look-right" rel="nofollow">https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-to-order-redesign...
    Bringing back the SR-71 for nostalgia/cool factor tracks reverting to steam hydraulics liftoffs and overhauling the aesthetics and tower location to look like old warships.
    jumpinjack710 · 1790786164 · focus · HN ↗
    'nitpicking' is a weird way to describe 'expects new technology to be reliable, wants to use the tried and true technology until then'
    [deleted] · 1790796872 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    LorenPechtel · 1790799064 · focus · HN ↗
    The F-14 got sent to the boneyard because it was so much more expensive to operate than comparable aircraft. The F-14 had only one real mission: carry the Phoenix to defend the carrier from the Russian bombers. And it was a suicide mission--the sprint to launch position would not leave enough fuel to get back to the carrier.
    andruby · 1790877362 · focus · HN ↗
    Do you have a source on these being suicide missions without enough fuel to get back? The F-14 has drop tanks, and after firing all missiles, that sheds another 4,000+ lb of payload.
    I think they planned with proper return. Which can also be at slower speed.
    LorenPechtel · 1790888886 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat
    You can't launch with full fuel and full weapons.
    rurban · 1790834396 · focus · HN ↗
    He really should read less Hitler books, who constantly knew everything better and hampered their russian campaign by insisting in big tanks, instead of smaller, faster ones.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.