alternative_right shares a report from Phys.Org: Using conventional propulsion and low-energy trajectories, it takes six to nine months for crewed spacecraft to reach Mars. These durations complicate mission design and technology requirements and raise health and safety concerns since crews will be exposed to extended periods in microgravity and heightened exposure to cosmic radiation. Traditionally, mission designers have recommended nuclear-electric or nuclear-thermal propulsion (NEP/NTP), which could shorten trips to just 3 months. In a recent study, a UCSB physics researcher identified two trajectories that could reduce transits to Mars using the Starship to between 90 and 104 days. The study was authored by Jack Kingdon, a graduate student researcher in the Physics Department at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB). He is also a member of the UCSB Weld Lab, an experimental ultracold atomic physics group that uses quantum degenerate gases to explore quantum mechanical phenomena. [...] As outlined on its website, conference presentations, and user manual, the SpaceX mission architecture consists of six Starships traveling to Mars. Four of these spacecraft will haul 400 metric tons (440 U.S. tons) of cargo while two will transport 200 passengers. Based on the Block 2 design, which has a 1,500 metric ton (1,650 U.S. ton) propellant capacity, the crewed Starships will require 15 tankers to fully refuel in low Earth orbit (LEO). The cargo ships would require only four, since they would be sent on longer low-energy trajectories. Once the flotilla arrives at Mars, the Starships will refuel using propellant created in situ using local carbon dioxide and water ice. When the return window approaches, one of the crew ships and 3-4 cargo ships will refuel and then launch into a low Mars orbit (LMO). The cargo ships will then transfer the majority of their propellant to the crew ship and return to the surface of Mars. The crew ship would then depart for Earth, and the process could be repeated for the other crew ship. Kingdon calculated multiple trajectories using a Lambert Solver, which produces the shortest elliptical arc in two-body problem equations (aka Lambert's problem). The first would depart Earth on April 30th, 2033, taking advantage of the 26-month periodic alignment between Earth and Mars. The transit would last 90 days, with the crew returning to Earth after another 90-day transit by July 2nd, 2035. The second would depart Earth on July 15th, 2035, and return to Earth after a 104-day transit on December 5th, 2037. As Kingdon explained, the former trajectory is the most likely to succeed: "The optimal trajectory is the 2033 trajectory -- it has the lowest fuel requirements for the fastest transit time. A note that may not be obvious to the layreader is that Starship can very easily reach Mars in ~3 months -- in fact, it can in any launch window, over a fairly wide range of trajectories. However, Starship may impact the Martian atmosphere too fast (although we do not know, and likely SpaceX don't either actually how fast Starship can hit the Martian atmosphere and survive). The trajectories discussed are ones that I am confident Starship will survive." The paper describing the work has been published in the journal Scientific Reports. Read more of this story at Slashdot.

A new type of fuel cell that runs on sodium metal could one day help clean up sectors where it’s difficult to replace fossil fuels, like rail, regional aviation, and short-distance shipping. The device represents a departure from technologies like lithium-based batteries and is more similar conceptually to hydrogen fuel cell systems.  The sodium-air fuel cell was designed by a team led by Yet-Ming Chiang, a professor of materials science and engineering at MIT. It has a higher energy density than lithium-ion batteries and doesn’t require the super-cold temperatures or high pressures that hydrogen does, making it potentially more practical for transport. “I’m interested in sodium metal as an energy carrier of the future,” Chiang says.   The device’s design, published today in Joule, is related to the technology behind one of Chiang’s companies, Form Energy, which is building iron-air batteries for large energy storage installations like those that could help store wind and solar power on the grid. Form’s batteries rely on water, iron, and air. One technical challenge for metal-air batteries has historically been reversibility. A battery’s chemical reactions must be easily reversed so that in one direction they generate electricity, discharging the battery, and in the other electricity goes into the cell and the reverse reactions happen, charging it up. When a battery’s reactions produce a very stable product, it can be difficult to recharge the battery without losing capacity. To get around this problem, the team at Form had discussions about whether their batteries could be refuelable rather than rechargeable, Chiang says. The idea was that rather than reversing the reactions, they could simply run the system in one direction, add more starting material, and repeat.  Ultimately, Form chose a more traditional battery concept, but the idea stuck with Chiang, who decided to explore it with other metals and landed on the idea of a sodium-based fuel cell.  In this fuel cell format, the device takes in chemicals and runs reactions that generate electricity, after which the products get removed. Then fresh fuel is put in to run the whole thing again—no electrical charging required. (You might recognize this concept from hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, like the Toyota Mirai.) Chiang and his colleagues set out to build a fuel cell that runs on liquid sodium, which could have a much higher energy density than existing commercial technologies, so it would be small and light enough to be used for things like regional airplanes or short-distance shipping. Sodium metal could be used to power regional planes or short distance shipping.GRETCHEN ERTL/MITTR The research team built small test cells to try out the concept and ran them to show that they could use the sodium-metal-based system to generate electricity. Since sodium becomes liquid at about 98 °C (208 °F), the cells operated at moderate temperatures of between 110 °C and 130 °C (or 230 °F and 266°F), which could be practical for use on planes or ships, Chiang says.  From their work with these experimental devices, the researchers estimated that the energy density was about 1,200 watt-hours per kilogram (Wh/kg). That’s much higher than what commercial lithium-ion batteries can reach today (around 300 Wh/kg). Hydrogen fuel cells can achieve high energy density, but that requires the hydrogen to be stored at high pressures and often ultra-low temperatures. “It’s an interesting cell concept,” says Jürgen Janek, a professor at the Institute of Physical Chemistry at the University of Giessen in Germany, who was not involved in the research. There’s been previous research on sodium-air batteries in the past, Janek says, but using this sort of chemistry in a fuel cell instead is new. “One of the critical issues with this type of cell concept is the safety issue,” Janek says. Sodium metal reacts very strongly with water. (You may have seen videos where blocks of sodium metal get thrown into a lake, to dramatic effect). Asked about this issue, Chiang says the design of the cell ensures that water produced during reactions is continuously removed, so there’s not enough around to fuel harmful reactions. The solid electrolyte, a ceramic material, also helps prevent reactions between water and sodium, Chiang adds.  Another question is what happens to one of the cell’s products, sodium hydroxide. Commonly known as lye, it’s an industrial chemical, used in products like liquid drain-cleaning solution. One of the researchers’ suggestions is to dilute the product and release it into the atmosphere or ocean, where it would react with carbon dioxide, capturing it in a stable form and preventing it from contributing to global warming. There are groups pursuing field trials using this exact chemical for ocean-based carbon removal, though some have been met with controversy. The researchers also laid out the potential for a closed system, where the chemical could be collected and sold as a by-product. There are economic factors working in favor of sodium-based systems, though it would take some work to build up the necessary supply chains. Today, sodium metal isn’t produced at very high volumes. However, it can be made from sodium chloride (table salt), which is incredibly cheap. And it was produced more abundantly in the past, since it was used in the process of making leaded gasoline. So there’s a precedent for a larger supply chain, and it’s possible that scaling up production of sodium metal would make it cheap enough to use in fuel cell systems, Chiang says. Chiang has cofounded a company called Propel Aero to commercialize the research. The project received funding from ARPA-E’s Propel-1K program, which aims to develop new forms of high-power energy storage for aircraft, trains, and ships. The next step is to continue research to improve the cells’ performance and energy density, and to start designing small-scale systems. One potential early application is drones. “We’d like to make something fly within the next year,” Chiang says. “If people don’t find it crazy, I’ll be rather disappointed,” Chiang says. “Because if an idea doesn’t sound crazy at the beginning, it probably isn’t as revolutionary as you think. Fortunately, most people think I’m crazy on this one.”

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” that House Republicans narrowly passed early Thursday would strip state legislatures of AI oversight and scale back consumer protection and climate initiatives while funding border surveillance, among many other provisions.The budget reconciliation bill still needs to be approved by the Senate, where some Republicans have voiced concerns with aspects of the text. But with President Donald Trump pushing for its passage into law, they could face an uphill battle in fighting for changes.Here are some of the key tech and science provisions in the House version of the text:Moratorium on state AI lawsStates would be stripped of their power to enforce laws regulating artificial intelligence models and “automated decision systems” for 10 years under the budget package. That would likely preempt hundreds of AI-related bills being considered in 2025, as well as dozens that have passed into law — and on top of that, the broad “automated decision” language could nix regulating all kinds of computer systems not frequently classed as AI.Republican supporters say the rule is necessary to let US companies innovate and keep up with rivals in China, and the idea has been promoted by OpenAI. More than 60 AI-related state bills have been enacted so far, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), many of which could be impacted by the proposed pause. The bills do everything from addressing algorithmic discrimination to regulating how AI can be used by government agencies.Critics worry the definition could also hamstring laws covering all kinds of systems that feature automation or use machine learning. That might include rules championed by state-level Republicans, who have passed numerous social media regulations in recent years. “Until we pass something that is federally preemptive, we can’t call for a moratorium”A couple Republican senators have expressed concern over the moratorium. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), eyeing a run for governor, spoke at a recent congressional hearing about her state’s AI law that seeks to protect a musician’s right to their voice’s likeness. “We certainly know that in Tennessee we need those protections,” Blackburn said, according to The Washington Post. “And until we pass something that is federally preemptive, we can’t call for a moratorium.”Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who publicly opposed Medicaid cuts in the House bill, also pushed back on the state law pause. “I would think that, just as a matter of federalism, we’d want states to be able to try out different regimes that they think will work for their state,” Hawley recently told Business Insider. “And I think in general, on AI, I do think we need some sensible oversight that will protect people’s liberties.”The provision could also face a challenge in overcoming the “Byrd rule,” which bars “extraneous” additions in reconciliation bills. Cuts to green energy tax creditsBiden-era tax credits for electric vehicles would be deprecated within two years if the House package is signed into law, and wind and solar energy credits would be phased out by 2032. The slashed credits include a $7,500 credit for purchasing eligible EVs, or $4,000 for an eligible used one, as well as credit for home refueling infrastructure.Updates shortly before the vote also rolled back key climate programs from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act even further than the bill initially did, though they also pared down an effort to roll back credits for nuclear reactors.Scaling back funding for consumer financial protectionThe Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which had already been decimated by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), would see its funding capped further under the bill. House Republicans seek to cap the amount it can receive from the Federal Reserve at 5 percent of the system’s total operating expenses, rather than the current 12 percent. That would reduce the resources the consumer protection agency would have to respond to consumer complaints over things like imminent foreclosures and credit card fraud, and regulate digital payments services.Border tech fundingThe bill includes billions of dollars to lock down US borders, including $12 billion to reimburse states for border security. In addition to the $46 billion it would invest to build and “modernize” the wall between the US and Mexico, the bill would also provide $1 billion in funding for technology to detect drugs and other contraband being brought across the border. Another $2.7 billion would go toward surveillance systems that House Homeland Security Republicans described as “ground detection sensors, integrated surveillance towers, tunnel detection capability, unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), and enhanced communications equipment.”Limiting gender-affirming careHealth care plans beginning in 2027 that are purchased through the Affordable Care Act marketplace would be barred from offering gender-affirming care, including hormone therapy and surgery. Similarly, the bill would prohibit Medicaid from covering “gender transition procedures” for minors and adults while requiring coverage for detransition.See More:

President Donald Trump is considering using a Qatari Boeing 747-8 given as a gift as Air Force One while the new presidential jet faces delays.The ruling family of Qatar gifted the US president the $400 million luxury jumbo jet, and Trump said he would "never be one to turn down that kind of offer."The potential plane deal faced pushback from critics and even some Trump allies over security concerns and the legal and ethical issues associated with using a foreign-origin aircraft as Air Force One, the president's airborne command center.Besides Air Force One, the presidential fleet includes other fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft depending on the mission. Presidential aircraft fleet A VC-25A aircraft and a VH-3D Sea King helicopter taxi following former President Joe Biden's sendoff ceremony at Joint Base Andrews. US Air Force photo by Hayden Hallman Air Force One is a call sign that refers to any US Air Force aircraft transporting the president, though it is commonly recognized by its blue-and-white livery.The Air Force has two "specially configured" Boeing 747-200B jets that are primarily used as Air Force One. The VC-25A aircraft is uniquely modified to serve as an airborne command-and-control center for the president, staff, and guests with the same level of safety and security as the White House.Other than the number of passengers it can carry, the main differences between the VC-25 and the standard Boeing 747 include more advanced electronic and communications equipment, a self-contained baggage loader, and the capability for in-flight refueling.The VC-25 also has a rest area and mini-galley for the aircrew, six passenger lavatories, and a compartment with medical supplies and equipment for minor in-flight emergencies. Marine One Nighthawk 46 arrives for the 46th president's send-off ceremony at Joint Base Andrews. US Air Force photo by Hayden Hallman For shorter distance trips, especially to and from the White House, the president flies in Marine One, which includes military helicopters like the VH-3D Sea King and the VH-60N White Hawk.In service for nearly five decades, both military helicopters are set to be phased out and fully replaced with modernized rotary-wing aircraft, the VH-92A.The next-generation Marine One is designed to be a militarized variant of the Sikorsky VH-92 Patriot. Other aircraft An 89th Airlift Wing C-40 and C-37 sit near UH-1N Iroquois helicopters and a C-17 Globemaster III at Joint Base Andrews. US Air Force photo by Senior Master Sgt. Kevin Wallace/RELEASED The presidential fleet also includes other fixed-wing aircraft besides the modified 747. The C-32A, a modified Boeing 757-200, is better suited for smaller airports or low-profile missions.The C-40, based on the Boeing 737, can be used to fly the president but is more often used for Cabinet members or other VIP individuals.Based on General Dynamics' Gulfstream long-range business jets, the C-37 is used to transport high-ranking government and Defense Department officials for worldwide missions. 'Next Air Force One' An artist rendering of the "Next Air Force One," the VC-25B, which will succeed the current Air Force One, VC-25A. Courtesy rendering/US Air Force The two planes currently being used as Air Force One have been in service for nearly four decades. They are set to be replaced by a modernized variant dubbed the "Next Air Force One."Officially designated the VC-25B, the new presidential aircraft is set to feature "electrical power upgrades, a mission communication system, a medical facility, an executive interior, a self-defense system, and autonomous ground operations capabilities," according to an Air Force release.The two future VC-25B jets were initially scheduled to be fielded in 2024, but supply chain issues and shifting requirements could postpone their delivery to 2029.Facing pressure from the White House to have the new aircraft ready before Trump leaves office in January 2029, the Air Force and Boeing are aiming to have the new aircraft delivered by 2027, according to Darlene Costello, the Air Force's principal deputy assistant secretary for acquisition, technology, and logistics. A 'security nightmare' US President Donald Trump's motorcade is parked next to a Qatari Boeing 747 on the tarmac of Palm Beach International Airport. ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP via Getty Images An Air Force official told Air and Space Forces Magazine that the service is coordinating with the White House and Boeing "to further define the requirements and acceleration options while ensuring we provide a safe, secure, and reliable aircraft for the president."Trump has previously expressed his frustration with receiving the next-generation Air Force One, suggesting earlier this year that he may seek "alternatives, because it's taking Boeing too long."Despite the backlash, the president doubled down on his proposal to use the Qatari jet as Air Force One, saying he doesn't plan on using it after his term and would donate it to a future presidential library."I could be a stupid person and say, 'No, we don't want a free, very expensive airplane,'" Trump told reporters Monday.Though free in cost, there's still a major cost to overhaul and retrofit the plane with the strict security requirements needed to serve as Air Force One."Along with the obvious ethical and legal issues, a $400M gifted luxury jet is not Air Force One," US Rep. Joe Courtney of Connecticut wrote on X. "Retrofitting a plane from Qatar would create huge costs & a security nightmare that would impede the work underway to deliver the actual AF1 by 2027."

Try, try again SpaceX test-fires Starship for an all-important next flight A notice to mariners suggests SpaceX's next Starship test flight could launch as soon as May 21. Stephen Clark – May 13, 2025 6:33 pm | 0 Starship's six Raptor engines fired for about 60 seconds Monday on a test stand in South Texas. Credit: SpaceX Starship's six Raptor engines fired for about 60 seconds Monday on a test stand in South Texas. Credit: SpaceX Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more SpaceX fired six Raptor engines on the company's next Starship rocket Monday, clearing a major hurdle on the path to launch later this month on a high-stakes test flight to get the private rocket program back on track. Starship ignited its Raptor engines Monday morning on a test stand near SpaceX's Starbase launch facility in South Texas. The engine ran for approximately 60 seconds, and SpaceX confirmed the test-firing in a post on X: "Starship completed a long duration six-engine static fire and is undergoing final preparations for the ninth flight test." SpaceX hasn't officially announced a target launch date, but maritime warnings along Starship's flight path over the Gulf of Mexico suggest the launch might happen as soon as next Wednesday, May 21. The launch window would open at 6:30 pm local time (7:30 pm EDT; 23:30 UTC). If everything goes according to plan, Starship is expected to soar into space and fly halfway around the world, targeting a reentry and controlled splashdown into the Indian Ocean. After Monday's successful static fire test, SpaceX is in the final stretch of preparations for Starship's ninth full-scale test flight. Last month, SpaceX test-fired the rocket's massive booster stage, known as Super Heavy. The Super Heavy booster assigned to the next Starship launch will become the first that SpaceX will reuse from a previous test flight. This, alone, is a significant step for the Starship program. SpaceX wants the Super Heavy booster and Starship upper stage to become rapidly reusable, eventually operating more like an airplane than a legacy rocket. The booster slated to launch on Flight 9 made its first flight in January, when it soared to the edge of space, released SpaceX's Starship upper stage, and returned to the launch pad, where it was caught in mid-air by heavy-duty mechanical arms. SpaceX will again try to catch the Super Heavy booster on Flight 9. Righting the ship While reusing the first stage is a noteworthy milestone, the next flight is important for another reason. SpaceX's last two Starship test flights ended prematurely when the rocket's upper stage lost power and spun out of control, dropping debris into the sea near the Bahamas and the Turks and Caicos Islands. With Flight 9, SpaceX hopes to get the Starship program back on track. The company aimed for as many as 25 Starship test flights this year, but will now likely fall short of that number. Near-term goals beyond Flight 9 include returning Starship from low-Earth orbit to the launch site, with a tower catch similar to the one SpaceX used to recover the Super Heavy booster. Then, SpaceX will begin flight experiments with an in-space refueling system to transfer super-cold liquid propellants between two Starships in orbit. This is an important milestone for NASA, which has a contract with SpaceX worth more than $4 billion to develop a version of Starship for landing humans on the Moon. To do that, SpaceX must launch around 10 Starship refueling tankers—the exact number remains unclear—to gas up the Moon-bound Starship lander before it can depart low-Earth orbit. SpaceX founder Elon Musk also wants Starship to fly to Mars, which will, likewise, require a mastery of in-space refueling. NASA may also soon rely on Starship and other massive commercial rockets to launch astronauts from Earth. The Trump administration has proposed canceling NASA's Space Launch System rocket after two more flights in favor of lower-cost commercial options. Starship's black heat shield tiles are visible here during the rocket's static fire test on Monday morning. Before any of this becomes possible, SpaceX must prove it has overcome the setbacks encountered on the two previous test flights. Both flights failed at roughly the same time—approximately eight minutes after liftoff—near the end of the ship's engine firing. SpaceX investigators, working under the oversight of the Federal Aviation Administration, determined the Starship test flight in January failed after propellant leaks led to fires in the rocket's aft compartment, or attic. This led to the early shutdown of the rocket's engines and eventual breakup. Engineers concluded the leaks were most likely caused by vibrations during the ship's climb into space. The vibrations were in resonance with the vehicle's natural frequency, intensifying the shaking beyond the levels SpaceX predicted. For the next test flight on March 6, SpaceX made changes to the ship's feed lines routing fuel to its Raptor engines, made adjustments to propellant temperatures, and flew the engines at a new throttle setting. But that didn't solve the problem. Once again, Starship's engines cut off too early, and the rocket broke apart before falling to Earth. SpaceX said "an energetic event" in the aft portion of Starship resulted in the loss of several Raptor engines, followed by a loss of attitude control and a loss of communications with the ship. The similarities between the two failures suggest a likely design issue with the upgraded "Block 2" version of Starship, which debuted in January and flew again in March. Starship Block 2 is slightly taller than the ship SpaceX used on the rocket's first six flights, with redesigned flaps, improved batteries and avionics, and notably, a new fuel feed line system for the ship's Raptor vacuum engines. SpaceX has not released the results of the investigation into the Flight 8 failure, and the FAA hasn't yet issued a launch license for Flight 9. Likewise, SpaceX hasn't released any information on the changes it made to Starship for next week's flight. What we do know about the Starship vehicle for Flight 9—designated Ship 35—is that it took a few tries to complete a full-duration test-firing. SpaceX completed a single-engine static fire on April 30, simulating the restart of a Raptor engine in space. Then, on May 1, SpaceX aborted a six-engine test-firing before reaching its planned 60-second duration. Videos captured by media observing the test showed a flash in the engine plume, and at least one piece of debris was seen careening out of the flame trench below the ship. SpaceX ground crews returned Ship 35 to the production site a couple of miles away, perhaps to replace a damaged engine, before rolling Starship back to the test stand over the weekend for Monday's successful engine firing. Now, the ship will head back to the Starbase build site, where technicians will make final preparations for Flight 9. These final tasks may include loading mock-up Starlink broadband satellites into the ship's payload bay and touchups to the rocket's heat shield. These are two elements of Starship that SpaceX engineers are eager to demonstrate on Flight 9, beyond just fixing the problems from the last two missions. Those failures prevented Starship from testing its satellite deployer and an upgraded heat shield designed to better withstand scorching temperatures up to 2,600° Fahrenheit (1,430° Celsius) during reentry. Stephen Clark Space Reporter Stephen Clark Space Reporter Stephen Clark is a space reporter at Ars Technica, covering private space companies and the world’s space agencies. Stephen writes about the nexus of technology, science, policy, and business on and off the planet. 0 Comments

The Trump administration's plan to accept a luxury jet donated by the Qatari government to use as Air Force One raises significant security concerns, intelligence experts and government officials say, as President Donald Trump said it would be "stupid" not to accept a free plane.Trump on Monday defended the administration's plans to receive a luxury jet donated by the Qatari government during remarks at the White House, calling the donation a "very nice gesture.""I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer. I mean, I could be a stupid person and say, 'No, we don't want a free, very expensive airplane.' But it was, I thought it was a great gesture," he said.MORE: Trump admin live updatesRhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, slammed the move, arguing that using the plane as Air Force One would "pose immense counterintelligence risks by granting a foreign nation potential access to sensitive systems and communications.""This reckless disregard for national security and diplomatic propriety signals a dangerous willingness to barter American interests for personal gain," Reed said in a statement Monday. "It is an affront to the office of the presidency and a betrayal of the trust placed in any U.S. leader to safeguard the nation's sovereignty."Air Force One a 'high-value target'Air Force One sits on the tarmac, May 12, 2025, at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.Win McNamee/Getty ImagesThe primary aircraft used in the current Air Force One fleet includes two aging Boeing 747-200 jumbo jets that have been operational since 1990. Despite flying for more than 35 years, the current pair of Air Force One jets are considered some of the safest and secure aircraft in the world.Many of the security features on the plane remain classified. It has anti-missile defenses or countermeasure systems to protect against surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles, and the communication devices can also withstand the pulse of a nuclear blast. It is also outfitted with sophisticated communications capability to allow the president to securely run the country from the plane and protect him from cyberattacks."It's designed to transport the president in a safe way and be able to withstand physical attacks, but to also ensure that the president maintains communication with military, his cabinet, other government leaders in a safe and secure manner," said John Cohen, an ABC News contributor and former acting Homeland Security official. "Any building or vehicle or airplane that the president is located is a high-value target for foreign intelligence services who want to gather as much information about the president."Air Force One can also remain in the air for several days due to its ability to refuel in midair. The plane also houses a small medical facility where doctors could perform surgery if needed.All of these systems would likely need to be installed on the Boeing 747-8 that Trump would receive as a gift from Qatar.MORE: Trump defends Qatar jumbo jet offer, says it would be 'stupid' to turn away free planeA jet donated by Qatar would also be a "counterintelligence nightmare," ABC News contributor Darrell Blocker, a former CIA field operative, said."If you go back to almost anything that is given by a foreign government, there are regulations and restrictions and guidelines for ensuring that they're not being bugged, and a plane would be an absolute nightmare to be able to confirm that it's not," Blocker told ABC News Live on Monday. "From an intelligence perspective, it's not the brightest move."Blocker cited that when the U.S. embassy was being built in Moscow in the 1980s, the U.S. had to "take it down to its bare bones" because the Russians "put bugs through every room, every facility.""I think the people of Troy, when they accepted that horse, regretted it after the fact also," he said.The complexity and time needed to retrofit and inspect the plane raise questions on cost and a timeline."Even under the best of circumstances, it's going to take a significant effort for the military to be satisfied that the aircraft is constructed safely, that it's not compromised from the standpoint of intelligence collection capabilities being planted on it, and that it is built in a way that it will be able to assimilate the sensitive communications and countermeasure capabilities that are that are present on any plane that's Air Force One," Cohen said. "To be done right, it's not going to happen quickly.""In order to adequately ensure that this airplane -- which was operated by a foreign government that happens to have a relationship with Iran and China and Russia -- in order to ensure that that plane has not had collection capabilities introduced into it when it was constructed, they're gonna have to basically tear it down to the airframe," he added.White House working on 'legal details'Both the U.S. Air Force and the Department of Defense referred questions to the White House when asked about the possible transfer of the Qatari-owned Boeing 747 to the Department of Defense."The plane will be donated to the Department of Defense, and as with any foreign gift given to the United States Government, all proper safety and security protocols will be followed," White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told ABC News.House Speaker Mike Johnson said Monday he would not comment on Trump preparing to receive the jet from Qatar because he hasn't seen the "details."The White House is working on the "legal details" of the Qatari government's donation to the Defense Department, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday in an appearance on Fox News."But, of course, any donation to this government is always done in full compliance with the law. And we commit ourselves to the utmost transparency and we will continue to do that," Leavitt added.President Donald Trump boards Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews, Md., on his way to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, May 12, 2025.Manuel Balce Ceneta/APTrump said during remarks at the White House on Monday that he doesn't plan to use the plane after he leaves office. Pressed by ABC News Senior Political Correspondent Rachel Scott on what he would say to people who view the luxury plane as a personal gift to him, Trump said it was not a gift to him but "a gift to the Department of Defense."Sources familiar with the proposed arrangement told ABC News that the plane would be a gift that is to be available for use by Trump as the new Air Force One until shortly before he leaves office, at which time ownership of the plane will be transferred to the Trump presidential library foundation.If a private contractor were able to complete the modifications needed to the donated plane before the end of Trump's presidency, many of the systems installed would then need to be removed should the Trump presidential library foundation take possession of the plane upon Trump leaving office due to the sensitive nature of the technology.Ultimately, Cohen said he suspects that members of the intelligence community and the military will assess the risk to national security and "the level of effort to minimize the risk to national security.""If they're doing their job, the president's national security team will explain to him the level of risk that exists if a foreign intelligence service were able to introduce collection capabilities that could intercept face-to-face communications on the plane, electronic communications coming from the plane," Cohen said. "They should also be explaining to him the level of effort that it will involve in order for that risk to be mitigated. And with that information, he can then make an informed decision on whether and under what conditions to accept the airplane."