Superluminous supernovae are the royalty in the supernova world. They're up to 100 times brighter than a standard supernova, and astrophysicists want to know why. New research shows that magnetars are responsible.

Nobody asked Polaris to build a six-wheeled tactical vehicle that fits inside a helicopter, carries more payload than a Humvee, and can launch loitering munitions before the enemy figures out it left the ground. Then again, nobody had to; however, maybe there were some clues.Also Read: An ode to the Deuce-and-a-Half: the M35 Cargo TruckCustomers started showing up with problems their four-seater couldn’t solve, and Polaris answered the only way an engineering company knows how: Slap an extra axle on it.The MRZR Alpha 6×6 is a pre-production prototype, technically speaking. Eight of them exist. They are currently in Norway, Australia, Quantico, and Tampa, which is not the distribution footprint of something anyone is planning to shelves. Please, Sir, May I Have Some Payload? Dave Skog, Business Development Manager with Polaris Government and Defense, was standing next to one of them at SOF Week in Tampa when he explained the whole thing in a single sentence.“The front half of the vehicle is all the same as our current SOCOM program of record vehicle, the Alpha 4×4. Basically, we have added an additional axle on the back.”That is the entire gripping and cinematic origin story. The MRZR Alpha 4×4 is already a proven platform, used extensively by SOCOM. The Marines call theirs the Ultra-Light Tactical Vehicle. The Air Force ordered them as well. They have the parts, the logistics chain is in place, and the maintainers already know the vehicle.Polaris kept more than 90% parts commonality between the 4×4 and the 6×6, which means the military is not being asked to learn a new vehicle. Only one new axle.What that axle does to the payload numbers is the kind of thing that makes procurement officers sit up a tad straighter. The standard four-seat Alpha carries 2,000 pounds total, operators included. The 6×6 delivers what the military industrial complex craves: more room for stuff.“The 6×6 is 3,000 pounds of capacity on the bed only, and then two 300-pound operators,” Skog said. “So it’s 3,600 pounds total on the vehicle.The cargo bed grows from 50 inches to 84 inches. The vehicle grows eleven inches in total length. That is the rub. Eleven inches for 3,000 pounds of bed payload, a 225-mile maximum range, and a gross vehicle weight that clears the standard M998 HMMWV, while the vehicle itself is a fraction of the size.The third axle also distributes the vehicle’s weight across six contact points instead of four, dropping ground pressure per tire. Results are a six-wheeled vehicle that actually outperforms the four-wheeled version in soft soil, mud, and the kind of terrain that exists in, say, Norway, where two of the prototypes are currently being evaluated by people who know what Norwegian mud feels like in March.It still fits inside an MV-22B Osprey. Roll-over protection system folded flat, loaded internally, same as the 4×4 always could. You fly it somewhere no road reaches, drive it off the ramp, and get to work. Moving troops, supplies, launching munitions, or evacuating wounded are just a few missions for the MRZR 6×6. All Over the World Already Eight prototypes may sound like a small number until you consider where they are. Norway, Australia, the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory at Quantico. SOF Week in Tampa. USSOCOM’s Program Manager for the Family of Special Operations Vehicles received units earlier this year to begin informing future requirements. The MCWL has been actively experimenting with logistics and precision fires applications.“They have gone out, and they’re actually all over the world now,” Skog said. “We’ve got a couple of them in Norway, and we’ve got one in Australia. So they’re with customers right now, basically going through that initial phase of trying them to see if they really like them.”That is what pre-production momentum looks like. This is not a concept render on a trade show poster. The MRZR Alpha 6×6 is a Technology Readiness Level 8 prototype, which means the design is mature, it has been demonstrated in an operational environment, and it is one qualification step from full production. The people evaluating it are not doing so out of curiosity. What’s in the Back On the SOF Week floor, the vehicle on display was carrying a launcher, Northrop Grumman’s loitering munition system. Loitering munitions are exactly what they sound like. They go up, they circle, they light a cigarette, get chased by security, find what they are looking for, and then they stop being so patient about it. Skog confirmed the setup without much fanfare.“That is actually a launcher. It’s called the Jackal. That is a launcher for loitering-type munitions, basically.”A vehicle small enough for an Osprey, carrying a launcher for self-guided munitions. That is the display. But Skog was careful to keep the frame wide when the conversation turned to what the bed is actually for.“It could be anything you wanna put on the deck, yeah. 3,000 pounds of whatever that is. So it could be fuel, water, munitions, supplies, you name it.”That versatility is the whole ballgame. The weapons integration gets the attention at a show like SOF Week, but the logistics case is what keeps programs alive. Future fights will happen on islands, coastlines, and austere terrain where convoy trucks cannot go, and helicopters don’t have unimpeded freedom.A vehicle that arrives by Osprey can sustain a small unit for days, and transforms into a weapons platform when the mission changes, scratching an itch the military has had for years.In February 2026, Global Military Products received a contract through the Naval Surface Technology and Innovation Consortium to integrate its Scorpion Light mobile mortar system onto the MRZR Alpha 6×6 for the Marine Corps.The Scorpion Light deploys, shoots eight rounds, and scoots on out of there in under two minutes, a timeline demonstrated live at Quantico during the Marine Gunners Symposium. Polaris has since been awarded a contract for six additional prototypes specifically to test that integration. Live-fire evaluation by the Marine Corps follows delivery. Like Peas and Carrots The MRZR Alpha 6×6 sits between two vehicles that have never fully covered each other’s blind spots. The ultra-light tactical vehicle is fast and mobile, but burns through its payload capacity before the mission does. The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle is capable and protected, but too large to load onto the aircraft that gets small units to the places they actually need to be. Neither one actually answers the requirement that the unit arrive by air, sustain itself, and generate fires without waiting on heavier assets.“We have had customers coming to us asking, ‘Hey, I want to put more payload on, my payload is larger, what can you do?'” Skog said. “And this was our best solution to still keep the vehicle small.”Small enough for the Osprey. Large enough to carry what the mission actually requires. That is the eye of the needle, and the 6×6 threads it cleanly.No full production decision has been announced as of yet. The evaluations in Norway, Australia, Quantico, and elsewhere are still returning data. That is how this phase of a program works. The military drives something hard, breaks what can be broken, and decides whether the platform earned its place in the inventory.Eight prototypes across Multiple allied nations with Mortar integration contracts sprinkled on top. But will the new size also come with new restrictions on what can transport it?“This six-by-six can still go inside a B22 helicopter,” Scott said, referencing the V-22 Osprey. “You can still fold the rops down, internally air transport it, all the same as the current four-seater, but it has the payload capacity and the cube capacity for the bed.”Six wheels, one Osprey, and 3,000 pounds of whatever the mission dictates. Don’t Miss the Best of We Are The Mighty • An Army Infantry Squad Vehicle sells for $1 million to benefit the Medal of Honor Foundation • The M113 armored personnel carrier was supposed to be obsolete• Mike Vining on Vietnam, Delta Force, and the sardines he never ate Technology Technology A Green Beret shares 12 important things that need to be in your bug-out bag By Blake Stilwell Technology The Marine Corps used ‘Doom II’ to train Marines to work together By Blake Stilwell Technology How the Growler disabled Venezuela’s air defense system By Stephen Ruiz Technology NASA’s ‘Flying Bathtub’ taught the Space Shuttle how to land By Friedrich Seiltgen Technology 5 Military tech breakthroughs of 2025 that are straight out of science fiction By Adam Gramegna The post The MRZR Alpha 6×6 scratches a 1,000-pound itch for the military appeared first on We Are The Mighty.

More than 65 years after the confiscation by Cuba’s communist government of assets owned by U.S. businesses there, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of a U.S. business that is seeking to recover for its losses under a 1996 law that targets the Cuban regime. By a vote of 8-1, the justices ruled in Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises that Havana Docks, a U.S. company that before 1960 had owned a right to use and operate the docks in the port of Havana, is potentially entitled to receive hundreds of millions of dollars for the use of the port by cruise lines between 2016 and 2019, even if the company’s control of the docks would have expired in 2004.The case hinged on the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, a law passed by Congress in 1996 that is also known as the LIBERTAD Act or as the Helms-Burton Act (after its sponsors). One provision of the law allows U.S. nationals to bring lawsuits in federal court against anyone who “traffics in property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government on or after January 1, 1959,” while another gives the president the power to suspend the right to bring a lawsuit when he believes that doing so is “necessary to the national interests of the United States and will expedite a transition to democracy in Cuba.” From 1996 until 2019, when President Donald Trump declined to renew the suspension, U.S. presidents repeatedly suspended the right to bring a lawsuit.After Trump opted not to renew the suspension, Havana Docks filed a lawsuit in Florida against four cruise lines – Royal Caribbean, Norwegian, Carnival, and MSC. Havana Docks contended that between 2016 and June 2019 the cruise lines had trafficked in property that had belonged to Havana Docks – the company’s right to use and operate the Havana Cruise Port Terminal, which the Cuban government confiscated in 1960.A federal district judge in Miami awarded Havana Docks more than $400 million. The cruise lines subsequently appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which – by a vote of 2-1 – reversed.Havana Docks then came to the Supreme Court, which on Thursday threw out the 11th Circuit’s decision and sent the case back to the lower courts.Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas explained that the key question in the case is whether, for purposes of the Helms-Burton Act, the “property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government” was Havana Docks’ right to use the docks (that is, the company’s “property interest in the docks”), or whether it was the docks themselves.The answer to that question, Thomas continued, is that the “property which was confiscated” can refer both to “the plaintiff’s interest in that property” and, more broadly, to the physical property itself – such as the docks in this case. Therefore, Thomas wrote, “confiscated property” such as the docks “is, as it were, tainted—off limits—such that anyone who uses the property can be liable to those who had an interest in the tainted property.”Applying that analysis to the case before him, Thomas reasoned that “the Cuban Government seized control of ‘property’—the docks that Havana Docks built—in 1960. At that point, the docks were tainted as confiscated property, … ‘the use of’ which the United States sought to ‘deter’” with the Helms-Burton Act. “The cruise lines later used the confiscated docks—property to which Havana Docks owns a certified claim—when they transported nearly a million passengers to Cuba between 2016 and 2019. The Court of Appeals therefore erred in concluding that Havana Docks failed to establish these requirements for” liability under the Helms-Burton Act.The majority sent the case back to the lower court for it to consider, among other things, the cruise lines’ other defenses against liability. Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a concurring opinion that Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined. She flagged “two issues” that the majority did not address but that, in her view, “raise significant concerns” when the case returns to the lower court or in similar cases brought under the Helms-Burton Act.First, Sotomayor argued, Havana Docks’ interpretation of the Helms-Burton Act “could allow it to recover a potentially unlimited amount of money from an unlimited number of people who use the confiscated docks at issue.” Although Havana Docks’ claim for its loss of its interest in the docks was certified as $9 million in 1960, Sotomayor noted, it could “recover millions, if not billions, of dollars over and over again, so long as anyone continues to make any commercial use of the docks. It is unlikely,” Sotomayor posited, “that Congress intended for someone who suffered a finite loss to reap infinite recoveries.”Second, Sotomayor questioned whether the cruise lines might be shielded from liability under an exception to the Helms-Burton Act for “transactions and uses of property” related to legal travel to Cuba. “Indeed,” she observed, “the Federal Government appears to have previously taken the position that these cruises were lawful and beneficial to both Cuba and the United States.”Justice Elena Kagan penned a rare solo dissent. She argued that the docks did not qualify as “property which was confiscated by the Cuban government” because the Cuban government, rather than Havana Docks, had always owned them. And Havana Docks’ property interest – its right to use the docks – had expired in 2004, she emphasized. “At the end of the day,” she wrote, “the Court’s interpretation of” the Helms-Burton Act, “treats all property interests as if they were perpetual ones.” But in her view, “a plaintiff can recover under” the Helms-Burton Act “only when the defendant traffics in the actual property that was confiscated from the plaintiff. Here,” she concluded, “that means Havana Docks’ claim should fail, because the cruise lines did not traffic in Havana Docks’ time-limited—and long-ago expired—concession.”

Most people are aware that shopping in bulk is a great money saver. Did you know that shopping in bulk is a green choice too? I use the term bulk food shopping to refer to buying goods from bulk bins at the store. I also use it to include buying in bulk packages. Shopping in […] The post Why You Should Start Bulk Food Shopping [Surprising Facts] appeared first on Family Focus Blog.

IN THE GREY is an action-thriller where a team of elite operatives, played by Jake Gyllenhaal (Bronco), Henry Cavill (Sid)

Golf superstar Bryson DeChambeau wants a family. "A bunch. I'd love to have a bunch of kids. Four, for sure," he shared on "The Kate...

WWE star Ludwig Kaiser was arrested Wednesday in Orange County, Florida, on a misdemeanor battery charge after allegedly assaulting a neighbor at a luxury Orlando apartment complex following a confrontation over the wrestler's public display of affection in an elevator.

Sakura, Kim Chaewon, Huh Yunjin, Kazuha and Hong Eunchae hit Newark's Prudential Center on Oct. 8.

"This is not the end of our work in Minnesota. This is not the end of the beginning of our work in Minnesota. This is the beginning of our work in Minnesota. The fraud here in Minnesota is shocking." The post DOJ: 15 in Minnesota Charged With Allegedly Running Fraud Schemes Targeting $90 Million first appeared on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion.