Hill Air Force Base's Mazer Chapel reopens after 2 years of renovations
HILL AIR FORCE BASE, Utah () — Mazer Chapel, one of Hill Air Force Base's oldest buildings, reopened today for event use.
Built in 1942, the chapel, now located at the Hill Aerospace Museum, has experienced decades of heavy use, which led to an expansive renovation project over the past two years.
Renovations included a new roof, siding, windows, and carpet, along with pew repairs, freshly painted walls, refinished wood, as well as modernized restrooms, sound systems, and HVAC.
'We are thrilled about this renovation project,' Museum Director Aaron Clark said in a press release. 'Renovating and preserving a World War II-era Army Air Forces chapel ensures the vital stories of local and national history are not forgotten over time.'
This is not the first time the chapel has undergone renovations. In 1945, a major fire forced renovation, and in 1948, it was remodeled. A new Base chapel replaced it in 1964, but it remained in use as an education building and extra office space, until it was declared excess in 1984, which led to it being scheduled for demolition.
PREVIOUSLY: Detonation season is starting at Hill Air Force Base – and you might hear a boom or two
However, rather than allowing the building to be demolished, the Hill Air Force Base Cultural Resource Program worked with the Aerospace Foundation of Utah to help relocate the chapel to the museum grounds and begin restoration work. It became a permanent fixture of the museum's Memorial Park upon its rededication in 1989.
'Visiting the Mazer Chapel offers guests a unique, immersive way to connect with history,' Clark added. 'As a space where service members and installation personnel once gathered during the world's most destructive conflict to rejoice in faith and hope for victory, or mourn the war's impact, it fosters reflection on the courage, unity, and sacrifice of those who came before us. It will bridge the gap between the past and the present.'
The chapel will be fully open to the public in two weeks. Visit the to book an event.
Cedar City man arrested for allegedly sending sexual photos to officer posing as 12-year-old
Charges filed against Utah man who allegedly messaged missing 15-year-old before her disappearance
Weber County School District considering tax increase
Hill Air Force Base's Mazer Chapel reopens after 2 years of renovations
Man Labs Skincare tops our Father's Day must-have list
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
5 hours ago
- Business Insider
Elon Musk calls Trump's spending bill 'utterly insane' as Senate gears up for a vote
Elon Musk is most definitely over. The Tesla CEO, who until recently was the face of the White House DOGE Office and Trump's efforts to cut government spending, had some more choice words for the president's signature spending bill on Saturday. "The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country! Utterly insane and destructive," Musk said on X. "It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future." Senate Republicans managed to push the bill past a key procedural hurdle over the weekend, allowing debate to begin. A final vote could come as early as Monday. Republicans have hoped to get a version of the bill to Trump's desk by the president's requested July 4 deadline. Some lawmakers, however, remain opposed to the bill. Democrats, meanwhile, have remained united in their opposition, and have found a surprise ally in Musk. In his criticisms on Sunday, Musk focused on provisions in the bill that would terminate Biden-era tax credits for renewable energy, such as solar, wind, and battery manufacturing. Tesla, Musk's automotive company, has an energy generation and storage business that earned $2.7 billion in revenue during Q1 2025. The company also uses batteries and solar cells in many of its products. In response to an X post from Michael Thomas — the founder of Cleanview, a company that tracks clean energy development — who said the bill would likely decrease energy capacity in the country, Musk said the bill would be "incredibly destructive" for the United States. In another post, Musk shared a poll about the bill and said it would be "political suicide" for the Republican Party. He also reposted several posts criticizing the bill, including one by Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican. "'BBB' = our credit rating if this bill becomes law," Massie wrote on X. Trump's mega bill will impact nearly every aspect of American life, including healthcare, student loans, taxes, Social Security, Medicaid, clean energy, defense, immigration, tipping, AI regulation, and more. Musk's X posts echo remarks he made earlier this month when his feud with Trump took a public turn. Musk called the bill a "disgusting abomination" on X before laying into Trump's personal life. At the time, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Business Insider said the situation was "an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted. The President is focused on passing this historic piece of legislation and making our country great again." The tech billionaire later apologized to Trump on X, saying he regretted "some" of his posts and that they "went too far."
Atlantic
8 hours ago
- Atlantic
How to Assess the Damage of the Iran Strikes
In August 1941, the British government received a very unwelcome piece of analysis from an economist named David Miles Bensusan-Butt. A careful analysis of photographs suggested that the Royal Air Force's Bomber Command was having trouble hitting targets in Germany and France; in fact, only one in three pilots that claimed to have attacked the targets seemed to have dropped its bombs within five miles of them. The Butt report is a landmark in the history of 'bomb damage assessment,' or, as we now call it, 'battle damage assessment.' This recondite term has come back into public usage because of the dispute over the effectiveness of the June 22 American bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities. President Donald Trump said that American bombs had 'obliterated' the Iranian nuclear program. A leaked preliminary assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency on June 24 said that the damage was minimal. Whom to believe? Have the advocates of bombing again overpromised and underdelivered? Some history is in order here, informed by a bit of personal experience. From 1991 to 1993 I ran the U.S. Air Force's study of the first Gulf War. In doing so I learned that BDA rests on three considerations: the munition used, including its accuracy; the aircraft delivering it; and the type of damage or effect created. Of these, precision is the most important. World War II saw the first use of guided bombs in combat. In September 1943, the Germans used radio-controlled glide bombs to sink the Italian battleship Roma as it sailed off to surrender to the Allies. Americans developed similar systems with some successes, though none so dramatic. In the years after the war, precision-guided weapons slowly came to predominate in modern arsenals. The United States used no fewer than 24,000 laser-guided bombs during the Vietnam War, and some 17,000 of them during the 1991 Gulf War. These weapons have improved considerably, and in the 35 years since, 'routine precision,' as some have called it, has enormously improved the ability of airplanes to hit hard, buried targets. Specially designed ordnance has also seen tremendous advances. In World War II, the British developed the six-ton Tallboy bomb to use against special targets, including the concrete submarine pens of occupied France in which German U-boats hid. The Tallboys cracked some of the concrete but did not destroy any, in part because these were 'dumb bombs' lacking precision guidance, and in part because the art of hardening warheads was in its infancy. In the first Gulf War, the United States hastily developed a deep-penetrating, bunker-busting bomb, the GBU-28, which weighed 5,000 pounds, but only two were used, to uncertain effect. In the years since, however, the U.S. and Israeli air forces, among others, have acquired hardened warheads for 2,000-pound bombs such as the BLU-109 that can hit deeply buried targets—which is why, for example, the Israelis were able to kill a lot of Hezbollah's leadership in its supposedly secure bunkers. The aircraft that deliver bombs can affect the explosives' accuracy. Bombs that home in on the reflection of a laser, for example, could become 'stupid' if a cloud passes between plane and the target, or if the laser otherwise loses its lock on the target. Bombs relying on GPS coordinates can in theory be jammed. Airplanes being shot at are usually less effective bomb droppers than those that are not, because evasive maneuvers can prevent accurate delivery. The really complicated question is that of effects. Vietnam-era guided bombs, for example, could and did drop bridges in North Vietnam. In many cases, however, Vietnamese engineers countered by building 'underwater bridges' that allowed trucks to drive across a river while axle-deep in water. The effect was inconvenience, not interdiction. Conversely, in the first Gulf War, the U.S. and its allies spent a month pounding Iraqi forces dug in along the Kuwait border, chiefly with dumb bombs delivered by 'smart aircraft' such as the F-16. In theory, the accuracy of the bombing computer on the airplane would allow it to deliver unguided ordnance with accuracy comparable to that of a laser-guided bomb. In practice, ground fire and delivery from high altitudes often caused pilots to miss. When teams began looking at Iraqi tanks in the area overrun by U.S. forces, they found that many of the tanks were, in fact, undamaged. But that was only half of the story. Iraqi tank crews were so sufficiently terrified of American air power that they stayed some distance away from their tanks, and tanks immobilized and unmaintained for a month, or bounced around by near-misses, do not work terribly well. The functional and indirect effects of the bombing, in other words, were much greater than the disappointing physical effects. Many of the critiques of bombing neglect the importance of this phenomenon. The pounding of German cities and industry during World War II, for example, did not bring war production to a halt until the last months, but the indirect and functional effects were enormous. The diversion of German resources into air-defense and revenge weapons, and the destruction of the Luftwaffe's fighter force over the Third Reich, played a very great role in paving the way to Allied victory. At a microlevel, BDA can be perplexing. In 1991, for example, a bomb hole in an Iraqi hardened-aircraft shelter told analysts only so much. Did the bomb go through the multiple layers of concrete and rock fill, or did it 'J-hook'back upward and possibly fail to explode? Was there something in the shelter when it hit, and what damage did it do? Did the Iraqis perhaps move airplanes into penetrated shelters on the theory that lightning would not strike twice? All hard (though not entirely impossible) to judge without being on the ground. To the present moment: BDA takes a long time, so the leaked DIA memo of June 24 was based on preliminary and incomplete data. The study I headed was still working on BDA a year after the war ended. Results may be quicker now, but all kinds of information need to be integrated—imagery analysis, intercepted communications, measurement and signature intelligence (e.g., subsidence of earth above a collapsed structure), and of course human intelligence, among others. Any expert (and any journalist who bothered to consult one) would know that two days was a radically inadequate time frame in which to form a considered judgment. The DIA report was, from a practical point of view, worthless. An educated guess, however, would suggest that in fact the U.S. military's judgment that the Iranian nuclear problem had suffered severe damage was correct. The American bombing was the culmination of a 12-day campaign launched by the Israelis, which hit many nuclear facilities and assassinated at least 14 nuclear scientists. The real issue is not the single American strike so much as the cumulative effect against the entire nuclear ecosystem, including machining, testing, and design facilities. The platforms delivering the munitions in the American attack had ideal conditions in which to operate—there was no Iranian air force to come up and attack the B-2s that they may not even have detected, nor was there ground fire to speak of. The planes were the most sophisticated platforms of the most sophisticated air force in the world. The bombs themselves, particularly the 14 GBU-57s, were gigantic—at 15 tons more than double the size of Tallboys—with exquisite guidance and hardened penetrating warheads. The targets were all fully understood from more than a decade of close scrutiny by Israeli and American intelligence, and probably that of other Western countries as well. In the absence of full information, cumulative expert judgment also deserves some consideration—and external experts such as David Albright, the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, have concluded that the damage was indeed massive and lasting. Israeli analysts, in and out of government, appear to agree. They are more likely to know, and more likely to be cautious in declaring success about what is, after all, an existential threat to their country. For that matter, the Iranian foreign minister concedes that 'serious damage' was done. One has to set aside the sycophantic braggadocio of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who seems to believe that one unopposed bombing raid is a military achievement on par with D-Day, or the exuberant use of the word obliteration by the president. A cooler, admittedly provisional judgment is that with all their faults, however, the president and his secretary of defense are likely a lot closer to the mark about what happened when the bombs fell than many of their hasty, and not always well-informed, critics. *Photo-illustration by Jonelle Afurong / The Atlantic. Source: Alberto Pizzoli / Sygma / Getty; MIKE NELSON / AFP / Getty; Greg Mathieson / Mai / Getty; Space Frontiers / Archive Photos / Hulton Archive / Getty; U.S. Department of Defense
Boston Globe
9 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Pat Williams, last Montana Democrat to serve in the House, dies at 87
His most notable election came in 1992, when Montana had been chiseled down to a single congressional seat, from two, after the 1990 census. Williams, who represented the state's more liberal forested western half, faced Rep. Ron Marlenee, a Republican who served the conservative ranchland of eastern Montana. Advertisement The left-versus-right showdown was fought over the use of the state's vast natural resources and whether the New Deal-era safety net for the vulnerable still mattered. Williams won narrowly, with 51% of the vote. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up In Washington, he was a co-sponsor of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, which gave workers 12 weeks of unpaid time off to care for a newborn or a sick family member. Multiple attempts to enact the law under Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush had failed. Williams called those administrations 'frozen in the ice of their own indifference' to working people. The law was signed by President Bill Clinton, who boasted of it nearly every day during his successful reelection race in 1996. A former schoolteacher, Williams was also on the front lines of a conflagration over the National Endowment for the Arts. Conservative senators in 1990 sought to abolish the agency because of grants it had made that supported photographers Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano, whose transgressive work was condemned by critics like Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association as blasphemous or obscene. Advertisement Williams was the chief author of a bipartisan compromise that preserved funding for the arts endowment while leaving decisions about obscenity to the courts. He became known as the savior of the NEA. He was also the sponsor of a pet bill, the Professional Boxing Safety Act, which required safety standards for professional fighters. Congress passed it in 1996. 'Yeah, I fought as a kid in Butte,' Williams told The New York Times. 'Back there you had to be a Democrat, and you had to be able to fight. Boxers are workers and deserve health protection.' John Patrick Williams was born Oct. 30, 1937, in Helena, Montana, the state capital. His parents, Shelton and Libby Williams, owned a candy shop in Butte. Evel Knievel, the daredevil motorcyclist, was a cousin who was born in Butte one year later, and the two boys tussled and played often, according to a Knievel biography. The family's hometown was built on copper mining, which had attracted waves of Irish immigrants. It was staunchly pro-union and embraced the working-class populism of the New Deal. Williams graduated from Butte High School in 1956 and earned a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Denver in 1961. He returned home to teach in the public schools from 1963 to 1969. Butte voters sent him in 1967 to the Montana House of Representatives, where he served two terms. Advertisement His wife, Carol Griffith Williams, whom he married in 1965, also became a state lawmaker, serving as the Democratic leader in the Montana Senate. She survives him, as do a son, Griff; two daughters, Erin and Whitney Williams; and five grandchildren. Williams first sought federal office in 1974 but lost the Democratic primary for a House seat to Max Baucus. Four years later, when Baucus moved up to run successfully for the Senate, Williams was elected to replace him in the House. When he announced that he would not seek reelection in 1996, joining the faculty of the University of Montana at age 59, he said his greatest regret was not to have revived a bill vetoed by Reagan that would have protected 1.4 million acres of pristine Montana wilderness. Reagan said he wanted to protect jobs and mining development in the state. Williams considered the jobs-versus-the-environment trade-off a false choice. 'A clean environment,' he said in 1992, 'has been and will be an absolute cash register for this state.' This article originally appeared in
