Stratolaunch goes hypersonic with reusable Talon-A vehicle
Two hypersonic flight tests were completed mere months apart using the same autonomous vehicle, a milestone for the U.S. as it jockeys with other world powers for speedy, maneuverable weapons.
Why it matters: The Talon-A flights handled by Stratolaunch contribute to the Pentagon's Multi-Service Advanced Capability Hypersonic Test Bed program (MACH-TB).
The U.S. has lacked a recoverable hypersonic aircraft for decades, since the X-15 was ditched.
What they're saying: "We've now demonstrated hypersonic speed, added the complexity of a full runway landing with prompt payload recovery, and proven reusability," Stratolaunch CEO Zachary Krevor said in an announcement.
In both instances, Talon-A launched from a larger aircraft known as Roc and landed at Vandenberg Space Force Base, California.
What we're hearing: There are additional chefs in the kitchen. Leidos, for example, oversees MACH-TB.
Northrop Grumman tested its Advanced Hypersonic Technology Inertial Measurement Unit aboard Talon-A. The company said it collected "hours of critical ground and flight data."
Ursa Major's Hadley engine sustained the speeds. CEO Dan Jablonsky in March told Axios the company is pouring money into "hypersonics, hypersonics and hypersonics."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Zumiez Inc (ZUMZ) Q1 2025 Earnings Call Highlights: Strong North American Sales and Private ...
Release Date: June 05, 2025 For the complete transcript of the earnings call, please refer to the full earnings call transcript. Zumiez Inc (NASDAQ:ZUMZ) reported a 5.5% increase in comparable sales, marking the fourth consecutive quarter of positive growth. The company's North American business showed resilience with a 7.4% increase in comparable sales. Zumiez Inc (NASDAQ:ZUMZ) exceeded the high end of its guidance ranges for both sales and profitability. The private label expansion reached 30% of total sales in the first quarter of 2025, up from 23% in 2023. The company maintains a strong financial position with over $101 million in cash and marketable securities and no debt. Other international net sales, including Europe and Australia, decreased by 0.2% from the previous year. The company faced a one-time legal cost of $2.9 million associated with a settlement, impacting SG&A expenses. Operating loss for the first quarter was $19.9 million, slightly improved but still significant. The European market remains challenging, with a slow start in 2025 and a 14.8% decrease in May comparable sales. The ongoing tariff situation adds uncertainty and complexity to pricing and could impact consumer spending. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 3 Warning Sign with ZUMZ. Q: Can you provide more details on how tariffs are impacting your cost of goods sold (COGS), particularly regarding your private label and third-party brands? A: Unidentified_3 (CFO): We've been proactive in addressing tariffs, starting last November. About 30% of our products are private label, which we control, while 70% are branded, requiring collaboration with our partners. We've reduced our China exposure from 50% and aim to lower it further by year-end. We've worked with brands to manage costs and have adjusted pricing and bundling strategies to offset tariff impacts. Q: Despite tariffs, you anticipate product margin growth. How do tariffs on private labels factor into this? A: Unidentified_3 (CFO): We've employed strategies like collaborating with brands and manufacturers to manage costs, adjusting private label strategies, and selectively increasing prices. These efforts should allow us to achieve modest product margin growth, despite the tariff environment. Q: Regarding your international operations, particularly in Europe, what challenges are you facing, and what strategies are you implementing to improve profitability? A: Unidentified_3 (CFO): We've slowed unit growth in Europe to focus on profitability. Despite a slow start in 2025, we're focusing on product innovation and margin expansion. The fourth quarter is crucial, and we're aligning our strategies to drive top-line growth and manage expenses effectively. Q: How are you managing inventory levels, especially with the potential impact of tariffs? A: Unidentified_3 (CFO): We pulled inventory receipts forward in anticipation of tariffs, aligning our inventory levels with prior years. We expect to end fiscal 2025 with inventory levels down from fiscal 2024, ensuring quality and alignment with demand. Q: Can you elaborate on your share repurchase program and its impact on financials? A: Unidentified_3 (CFO): We repurchased 1.8 million shares in Q1, fully utilizing the previous buyback authorization. A new $15 million buyback plan has been approved, expected to continue through June 2026. While it impacts quarterly EPS, it is expected to positively affect full-year and future earnings. For the complete transcript of the earnings call, please refer to the full earnings call transcript. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump Soured on Hegseth After Musk Pentagon Invite: ‘Crazy and Stupid'
President Donald Trump was livid after he learned that Pete Hegseth had invited Elon Musk for an exclusive briefing at the Pentagon, according to a new report in The Atlantic. The meeting made headlines in March when The New York Times reported that the defense secretary would brief Musk on plans for a potential war with China—where the world's richest man conducts significant business. Publicly, Musk, Hegseth, and Trump were united in their dismissal of the story. The president called it 'fake news' and claimed that China was never intended to be discussed in the briefing. Behind closed doors, however, Trump was upset that Hegseth extended the invitation at all. When he learned about the briefing the night before it was set to happen, the president called Hegseth, insiders told The Atlantic. Trump told him that the briefing was 'a bad look' for the administration. In an in-person conversation the following day, Trump reiterated his displeasure to Hegseth. 'This is crazy and stupid,' the president said, according to the insiders. 'Why would we even do this?' Trump acknowledged publicly at the time that Musk should not receive Pentagon intel on China, due to his interests in the region. 'I certainly wouldn't want, you know—Elon has businesses in China, and he would be susceptible, perhaps, to that,' he told reporters at the White House. 'But it was such a fake story.' The moment marked a turning point in Hegseth's tenure at the Pentagon—and in his relationship with Trump. That Hegseth had the briefing take place in the Tank, a storied Pentagon conference room where top officers meet with the president, only added to the insult, The Atlantic reported. 'Up until then, DOD had been the golden child,' a person close to Hegseth's office told The Atlantic. But afterwards, Hegseth began to spiral. Not long after, the defense secretary became wrapped up in the Signalgate scandal—when he shared operational attack details on a group chat that included The Atlantic's editor-in-chief. The Pentagon was also wracked by leaks, creating paranoia for Hegseth. He ended up firing three top staffers, whom he alleged were guilty of sharing information with the media. 'Things were heading in the right direction,' the Hegseth insider said. 'But then the leaks and Signalgate just really f---ed up Pete.' Reflecting on what went wrong, insiders pointed to Hegseth's tendency to 'flex' his office. He likes to impress people with his access and power, they said. 'He's got this $180,000 Ferrari. That's the Pentagon for him,' one insider told The Atlantic. 'And he likes to show it off.' Asked for comment on The Atlantic's report, the Pentagon directed the Daily Beast to an X post by top spokesperson Sean Parnell. 'While Secretary Hegseth is at NATO successfully convincing our allies to spend more on defense, The Atlantic is doing what they do best, writing fake news recycled gossip columns,' he wrote. 'Just total BS.' The White House did not immediately answer The Daily Beast's request for comment. However, an unnamed White House official told The Atlantic that Hegseth's job is '100 percent safe.' Meanwhile, White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly told the magazine that the entire administration is 'fully behind Secretary Hegseth's mission to prioritize our warfighters, eliminate terrorists, and restore common sense at the DOD.'
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Retired Rear Admiral Who Served Under Trump Warns of Plans to Politicize Military Justice System
A top retired Navy legal official is sounding the alarm over what he sees as a growing and dangerous politicization of the military legal system and the lawyers who run it. In a public talk last week and in an interview with on Thursday, retired Rear Adm. Jim McPherson warned that the Trump administration and leaders in the Pentagon have politicized the selection process for the top lawyers in all three military branches by going around the traditional selection process and requiring nominees to answer screening questions about specific policies favored by the administration. The warning comes just months after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired the top lawyers for the Army and Air Force without explanation. The Navy's top lawyer had resigned shortly after the election in late 2024. McPherson's remarks seem to confirm the fears that legal experts had shortly after the firings. Read Next: Army Faces Backlash over Plan to Divert Barracks Funds to Border Mission In a lunchtime address to a group of lawyers at an American Bar Association function, McPherson, whose long career included several top civilian posts in the Pentagon during the first Trump administration, noted Hegseth's remarks to Fox News in the days after the firings. "Ultimately, we want lawyers who give sound constitutional advice and don't exist to attempt to be roadblocks to anything," Hegseth said on the cable news channel in February. Hegseth then went on to note that "traditionally" those top lawyers -- sometimes known by the abbreviation TJAG for "The Judge Advocate General" -- have "been elected by each other or chosen by each other ... small groups of insulated officers who perpetuate the status quo." "Well, guess what? That status quo hasn't worked very well at the Pentagon. It's time for fresh blood," said Hegseth, a former Fox News host. During his time serving the Pentagon in the first Trump term, McPherson held the posts of under secretary of the Army, general counsel of the Army, and the acting secretary of the Navy. In his address, McPherson pushed back on Hegseth's argument, calling it "misinformed." McPherson, who served as the Navy's judge advocate general in the early 2000s, said that military lawyers are there to "ensure the rule of law and operational environments." "Adherence to the rule of law is essential as a disciplined force for the effective and efficient application of forces and force enabler -- they're not roadblocks," he added. However, Hegseth has a long track record of disdain for lawyers and the military justice system. In his last book, the then-Fox News host and commentator wrote that "our adversaries should receive bullets, not lawyers." "If we refuse to do what is necessary, that is precisely why wars become endless," he wrote. In the same book, he also wrote that the Geneva Conventions -- international treaties governing the humane treatment of prisoners of war and civilians -- force the U.S. to fight "with one hand tied behind our back." "If our warriors are forced to follow rules arbitrarily and asked to sacrifice more lives so that international tribunals feel better about themselves, are we just better off winning our wars according to our own rules?" he mused in the book. As a Fox News host, Hegseth also took personal interest in and advocated for the release of two Army officers who were charged with war crimes -- 1st Lt. Clint Lorance and Maj. Mathew Golsteyn -- during the first Trump administration. Lorance was found guilty in a 2013 court-martial of second-degree murder, making false statements and other charges after he ordered his platoon to fire on three Afghan men on a motorcycle. Golsteyn was charged with murder after killing a suspected, unarmed Taliban bombmaker, later burning his body. Both men received presidential pardons from Trump. Hegseth also played a role in helping lessen the punishment of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, who was charged with war crimes for stabbing a wounded ISIS prisoner but ultimately convicted of posing for a photograph with the corpse. "Our current secretary, as a Fox commentator, blamed the JAGs that were involved in those cases for railroading those individuals who were simply doing their job," McPherson said. Now, it appears that the selection process for the new TJAGs is being modified to give Hegseth ultimate say over who heads the lawyers for each service, and candidates are being asked political questions during their interviews. "My understanding is each of those three services has already held a board, but the guidance to that board was very different than previous boards," McPherson said, adding that "the guidance to the boards was rank order your recommendations." "In other words, don't come forward with a single name recommendation" as was done in the past, he said. From there, those groups of candidates would be interviewed by the top civilian for each service and Hegseth would interview each finalist before passing their names to the White House, McPherson said. "This departs markedly from the statutory requirement that the boards that select the TJAGs be in conformance with all other boards," said McPherson, noting that the requirement says that should be done "as far as practicable." "I'm sure that's the exception that they will use," he added. Since McPherson was relaying the information about the process through his own connections and sources, reached out to Hegseth's office for comment. They declined to comment and instead referred questions to the services. According to McPherson, Navy Secretary John Phelan has interviewed at least three finalists as part of the Trump administration vetting of the military lawyers. Amid those interviews, Phelan asked the candidates whether they agreed "with a policy regarding the mandatory inoculation for COVID and how that policy was executed" and "do you agree with the former policy regarding eligibility for transgender people to enter and remain in the service and how that policy was executed," McPherson said. McPherson called these "two highly political questions" and policies with "which the TJAG would have never been involved in." The former Navy JAG said that they were "totally inappropriate questions to ask." also reached out to Phelan's office with questions about the selection process and the vetting questions. Capt. Adam Clampitt, a spokesman for the secretary, declined to comment on the selection process and said the service wanted "to maintain the integrity of the convening board process." Clampitt flatly denied that Phelan asked the vetting questions. "That is categorically false and did not happen," he said. He did not answer follow-up questions on whether he was calling McPherson, a man who retired as a rear admiral and went on to serve as Army under secretary in the first Trump administration, a liar. For his part, McPherson was undeterred by the denial. When reached out, he said that he was standing by his remarks and the source who relayed the information to him. In an interview Thursday, McPherson also noted that what struck him about the questions was how politically charged they were even compared to his own experience in the first Trump term. "I went through a vetting process at the White House with the personnel office, and sat through an interview with three other attorneys who worked on the staff there and then the head of that office, and I was surprised that they didn't ask me political-style questions," he said. "I didn't get hot-button policy questions as a senior political appointee," McPherson said of the experience. While McPherson shares the belief of many other military legal experts that the JAGs will not be able to act as a legal bulwark, he noted that they are still a powerful voice of conscience and ethics for decision-makers in times when they may be asked to confront challenging orders. Amid the Black Lives Matter riots that gripped much of the country in the summer of 2020, Trump famously pushed for the use of National Guard troops, including employing deadly force, against protesters and made a controversial appearance at Lafayette Square outside the White House alongside then-Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley and former Defense Secretary Mark Esper. The move was criticized by many who saw Milley's presence there as the military's endorsement of Trump's goal to use the country's troops against its own citizens. "My presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics," Milley later said as part of an apology. McPherson said that there was a discussion within Army senior leadership at that time about what they would do if Trump invoked the Insurrection Act -- a law that would allow him to use troops to put down protests. "What are we prepared to do? What are we prepared to say? No, we can't do that. We actually had that conversation," McPherson said, noting that this conversation also involved Milley and Esper. "I felt confident at the time that we would do the right thing," he said. "We no longer have an Esper or Milley in charge, and that's the fear I have, quite frankly." Related: 'People Are Very Scared': Trump Administration Purge of JAG Officers Raises Legal, Ethical Fears
