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

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

NASA’s reported effort to revive an SR-71 Blackbird or build a new Mach 3+ aircraft based on it is drawing a mix of awe and skepticism. Commenters highlight the plane’s extraordinary Cold War-era performance but question the practicality of resurrecting a 1960s titanium, analog-intensive design whose tooling, fuel supply, and specialist workforce were largely dismantled. Many see it either as a politically driven vanity or cover project in an era of satellites and stealth drones, while others argue it could be valuable for high-speed research and for relearning lost aerospace know‑how.

Overall Reaction

  • Strong mix of excitement (“incredible to see it fly again”) and deep skepticism (“expensive and pointless vanity project,” “clown show”).
  • Many see it as emblematic of a broader drift toward reviving 1960s tech (steam catapults, “battleship” concepts) instead of advancing new capabilities.

Feasibility and Engineering Challenges

  • Major obstacles cited:
    • Tooling and spare parts were deliberately destroyed or scrapped.
    • Unique JP‑7 fuel and tanker infrastructure no longer exist.
    • Airframes have sat for decades, some outdoors, with unknown internal condition and titanium-specific corrosion issues.
    • Many components, processes, and supplier chains are gone; refabrication is nontrivial.
  • Starting system (iconic V8 “start carts”) viewed as solvable; fuel, materials, and systems integration seen as much harder.
  • Several comments stress lost tacit knowledge: drawings exist, but “how to actually build and maintain it” does not.

Strategic Rationale and Alternatives

  • Many argue there’s little operational need:
    • Modern ISR handled by satellites, high‑altitude drones (e.g., RQ‑series), and orbital platforms (e.g., X‑37B).
    • Modern SAMs and missiles make speed/altitude less protective than in the 1960s.
  • Counterpoints:
    • Need for persistent, high‑altitude, high‑speed research platform for NASA flight research.
    • Insurance against loss or degradation of space-based surveillance (ASAT warfare, Kessler risk).
    • Potential use as a Mach‑3+ testbed, or as a stepping stone toward hypersonic systems (sometimes linked to rumored SR‑72‑like projects).

Politics, Funding, and Possible Cover Stories

  • Many suspect political or “cool factor” motivations tied to current leadership and prestige projects.
  • Some see it as budget theater or a grift; others as a billionaire‑driven passion project.
  • Recurrent idea: “SR‑71 restart” might be a deliberate cover story for recruiting legacy experts into a classified next‑gen program or to mislead adversaries.

Expertise and Institutional Memory

  • Strong emphasis that engineers, technicians, and specialized trades do not “grow on trees.”
  • Parallels drawn to difficulties restarting nuclear subs, mega‑rail, nuclear plants, and Saturn/F‑1‑class hardware.
  • Some argue the real value would be rebuilding lost high‑end aerospace craftsmanship and analog/EMP‑resistant navigation expertise (astro‑inertial, non‑GPS).

Enthusiasm, Nostalgia, and Culture

  • SR‑71 widely praised as one of the greatest, most beautiful aircraft ever built; many share childhood awe and stories.
  • Some endorse restoration purely for inspiration, education, and “making technology cool again.”
  • Others counter that kids deserve new marvels, not resurrected 60‑year‑old icons.

Safety and Risk

  • Concerns that pushing an aged, largely unique system back into flight is high‑risk, especially under politically driven timelines.
  • Debate over whether current NASA leadership and a showman‑style administrator will manage risk better or worse than prior shuttle-era failures.