It wasn’t just Notre-Dame Cathedral that burned, it was the very heart of France, they say.
Parisians wept as they watched the catastrophe unfold, fearing for the lives of worshippers – and the survival of one of the most holy relics in the world.
Firefighters worked tirelessly to contain the blaze and save as much of the iconic building as they could, even as they contended with molten lead and billowing smoke.
Miraculously, no one died in the fire and the Crown of Thorns relic – whose exact location inside Notre-Dame was a secret known only to a few – was found and carried to safety.
Image: Smoke billows as fire engulfs the spire. Pic: Reuters
On the evening of 15 April 2019, a pinnacle of human achievement went up in flames. The restoration of the cathedral in just five years is yet another testament to the skills of master craftsmen, and the generosity of those who donated to the project.
“Those pictures are still harrowing and the moving footage of the disaster still breaks my heart,” says Dr Emily Guerry, a tutor in medieval history at the University of Oxford.
“It has a place in lots of people’s hearts,” she says. “It’s a place where thousands and maybe millions have found succour over the years, both as a real place they visited and as an idea that they’ve explored through literature.”
Image: Flames and smoke rise from Notre-Dame. Pic: AP
Image: The altar of Notre-Dame following the fire. Pic: Reuters
President Emmanuel Macron decreed that instead of decades, the cathedral would be restored in just five years. An extraordinarily complex project had been made even harder by a deadline.
Not only was so much lost, but melting lead had sent plumes of lead dust into the air, covering much of the site in toxic dust. The clean-up required to make the cathedral safe would be considerable.
But as chief architect Philippe Villeneuve looked at the wreckage, he felt a flash of hope.
“All the stained-glass windows were spared, the great organ, the furniture, the paintings – everything was intact,” he realised. “It was doable.”
Image: Miraculously, the stained glass windows survived the fire. Pic: AP
But it wasn’t just furnishings and features that were saved by firefighters – an extraordinary rescue mission salvaged the holy Crown of Thorns relic from the flames.
Dr Guerry, an expert on both Gothic architecture (of which Notre-Dame is the defining example) and medieval relics, says the Crown is “beyond value”.
Many Christians believe it is the same crown that the Bible says was placed on Jesus’s head before the crucifixion.
Image: The holy Crown of Thorns relic was rescued from the blaze. Pic: Reuters
Image: French President Emmanuel Macron visits the cathedral last month. Pic: Reuters
“It’s not just locked in the treasury, it’s kept in a very secret place that I think only one or two people know about,” she tells Sky News.
“So when the fire brigade was trying to evacuate the relics, they got everything out but the Crown of Thorns, because they couldn’t find it.”
One firefighter inadvertently grabbed a decoy copy of the crown before going back in through the ash clouds and found the relic, under directions from an official who knew where it was.
Image: The restored nave of Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris. Pic: Reuters
Now, after five years, the cathedral is restored and ready for visitors. And some see it as better than ever.
“It’s horrible to say [of the fire], but every cloud has a silver lining,” Mr Villeneuve says, smiling. “The stone is luminous now. It almost glows.”
The painstaking process of scrubbing every surface free of lead dust exposed a brightness not seen for centuries.
“I’m excited to be sort of transported in time by being inside Notre-Dame,” Dr Guerry says, looking forward to her visit later this month. “It’s like walking back into the 12th century.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:42
First look at restored Notre-Dame
Indeed, as he walked through the medieval wooden beams of the reconstructed framework – so complicated it is known as the “forest” – Mr Villeneuve remarked he felt the work was so seamless the inferno might never have happened.
“If I can make [cathedral visitors] doubt there was ever a fire, then I’ve erased the horror,” he says.
Notre-Dame officially reopens this weekend, with public access from Sunday. Such is the demand that visitors are recommended to book timeslots online on the cathedral’s website.
Donald Trump could meet Vladimir Putin in person as early as next week to discuss a ceasefire in Ukraine, a White House official has said.
They said the meeting would be conditional on the Russian president meeting his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Sky News’s US partner network NBC News reported.
It came days before the White House’s deadline for Russia to reach a peace deal with Ukraine or face severe economic penalties, which could also target countries buying its oil.
Asked during a news conference at the White House if the talks would take place, Mr Trump said: “There’s a very good prospect that they will.”
He said it had not been determined where the talks would take place, but added: “We had some very good talks with President Putin today.”
However, he said: “I’ve been disappointed before with this one.”
Asked if Mr Putin made any kind of concession to lead to the development, Mr Trump did not give much away, but added: “We’ve been working on this a long time. There are thousands of young people dying, mostly soldiers, but also, you know, missiles being hit into Kyiv and other places.”
Trump might finally be a step closer to ending the war
Seven hours is a long time in US politics.
At 10am, Donald Trump accused Russia of posing a threat to America’s national security.
At 5pm, Trump said there was a “good prospect” of him meeting Vladimir Putin “soon”.
There had, he claimed, been “great progress” in talks between his special envoy Steve Witkoff and the Russian president.
It’s difficult to gauge the chances of a meeting between the two leaders without knowing what “great progress” means.
Is Russia “inclined” towards agreeing a ceasefire, as Ukraine’s president now claims?
Is Putin prepared to meet with his Ukrainian foe Volodymyr Zelenskyy, too?
The very fact that we’re asking those questions suggests something shifted on a day when there was no expectation of breakthrough.
Trump repeatedly vowed to end the war within 24 hours of becoming president.
On day 198 of his presidency, he might, just might, be one step closer to achieving that.
More tariffs ‘could happen’
Mr Trump also said he could announce further tariffs on China similar to the 25% he announced on India over its purchases of Russian oil.
“Could happen,” he said, after saying he expected to announce more secondary sanctions intended to pressure Russia into ending its war with Ukraine.
Earlier, he imposed an additional 25% tariff on Indian goods, on top of a previous 25% tariff, over its continued purchases of Russian oil.
India’s foreign ministry spokesperson said the additional tariffs were “unfair, unjustified and unreasonable”.
Image: Vladimir Putin welcomes Steve Witkoff during a meeting in Moscow. Pic: Sputnik/Reuters
It came after Mr Putin held talks with Mr Trump‘s special envoy Steve Witkoff in Moscow, with the meeting lasting around three hours.
In a post on Truth Social, Mr Trump said Mr Witkoff “had a highly productive meeting” with Mr Putin in which “great progress was made”.
He said he had updated America’s European allies, and they will work towards an end to the Russia-Ukraine war “in the days and weeks to come”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:11
Correspondents in Washington and Moscow break down a busy day of diplomacy
‘The war must end’
Mr Zelenskyy later said he and Mr Trump spoke on the phone after the meeting. He said “European leaders also participated in the conversation” and “we discussed what was said in Moscow”.
He added: “Our common position with our partners is absolutely clear: The war must end. We all need lasting and reliable peace. Russia must end the war that it started.”
Mr Zelenskyy later said: “It seems that Russia is now more inclined to agree to a ceasefire.”
He added that the pressure on Moscow “is working”, without elaborating, and stressed it was important to make sure Russia does not “deceive us or the United States” when it comes to “the details” of a potential agreement.
Ghana’s defence and environment ministers are among eight killed when a military helicopter crashed, the government has said.
The West African country’s military said the helicopter took off in the morning from the capital Accra and was heading northwest into the interior to the town of Obuasi when it went off the radar.
Footage of the crash site shows debris on fire in a forest as people circle around to help.
The cause of the crash was not immediately known. The military said an investigation was under way.
Defence minister Edward Omane Boamah and environment minister Ibrahim Murtala Muhammed were killed, along with the vice-chair of the National Democratic Congress ruling party, a top national security adviser and the helicopter’s three crew members.
NASA is accelerating plans to put a nuclear reactor on the moon, and they claim it could happen by 2030.
In a directive – a written or oral instruction issued by the US government – to NASAstaff earlier this month, Sean Duffy, US transport secretary and the new interim administrator of the space agency, said it should be ready to launch a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor in five years.
Plans to get a reactor on the lunar surface are not new. The NASA website states the space agency is working on the Fission Surface Power Project to create a system capable of generating at least 40 kilowatts of power – but that is less than half of what Mr Duffy has now proposed.
He also stressed the importance of America’s space agency deploying the technology before China and Russia.
“To properly advance this critical technology, to be able to support a future lunar economy, high power energy generation on Mars, and to strengthen our national security in space, it is imperative the agency move quickly,” the directive, which was first reported on by Politico, states.
Image: Sean Duffy says NASA should be ready to launch a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor in five years. Pic: Reuters
A nuclear reactor on the moon would be considered a key step towards building a permanent base for humans to live on the lunar surface.
But Mr Duffy warned that the first country to deploy a reactor “could potentially declare a keep-out zone” which he said could significantly inhibit NASA’s Artemis mission – the lunar exploration programme which aims to land astronauts back on the moon in 2027.
When quizzed about the plan on 5 August, he told reporters: “We’re in a race to the moon, in a race with China to the moon. And to have a base on the moon, we need energy.”
Why use a nuclear reactor?
Unlike solar power, which is used on the International Space Station, a small nuclear reactor can operate continuously, Dr Sungwoo Lim, a senior lecturer in space applications, exploration and instrumentation at the University of Surrey told Sky News.
This is critical for infrastructure on the moon, which spends two weeks in complete darkness as it slowly orbits the Earth.
Nuclear reactors therefore diminish the need for sunlight, and can be used to power life support, communications and other critical science instruments, even in darkness.
Image: An artist impression of a nuclear reactor on the moon. Pic: NASA
“In practice, this means astronauts could use a reactor to establish sustainable bases and extend exploration to places where solar energy is impractical,” Dr Lim adds, including in the moon’s permanently shadowed region, where scientists believe ice water exists.
Professor Mike Fitzpatrick, an expert in nuclear technology at Coventry University, adds that the proposal of a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor, is relatively small compared to most that are built on Earth.
To put it in real terms, it takes around three kilowatts to power the kettle in your home.
But Prof Fitzpatrick says a smaller reactor could pose as “demonstrator technology”, something small and compact that makes it easier to transport it to the moon.
“Then you can have a whole array of them,” he says.
So, what’s the catch?
While scientists agree that nuclear energy seems like the necessary way to make progress on the moon, Prof Fitzpatrick says questions still remain about safety.
“Shipping the fuel to the moon is relatively safe, because at that point it is not particularly toxic, it is the highly reactive fission products that become the issue,” he says.
“What’s going to be the strategy for long-term storage and disposal on the moon after these plants have operated for certain periods of time? The sooner those conversations are had, and you have international consensus, the less likely it is you’ll get future friction.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:55
Four astronauts launch to ISS after delay
Dr Lim also questioned Mr Duffy’s timescale of 2030, saying meeting the target depends heavily on the space agency’s budget.
NASA’s future funding is currently unknown after Donald Trump’s 2026 budget request sought a cut of $6bn (£4.5bn) and the termination of dozens of science programs and missions.
Over 2,000 agency employees are also set to voluntarily leave NASA in the coming months under the Trump administration’s “deferred resignation” programme.
Is this the new space race?
Last year, Russia’s space agency Roscosmos said it was planning to build a lunar nuclear reactor alongside China’s National Space Administration by 2035, in order to power the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS).
The collaboration was never formally announced by China but the joint plan was included in a presentation by Chinese officials in April this year, which outlined the 2028 Chang’e-8 lunar mission which aims to lay the groundwork for the ILRS.
“Duffy explicitly described it as a competition,” says Dr Lim, adding that the move towards lunar exploration signals a renewed moon or space race among major parties like China, Russia, India and the US to claim strategic lunar territory and technology.
However, Rossana Deplano a professor of international space law at the University of Leicester, says there is a lot of misunderstanding around “keep out” or safety zones, which Mr Duffy’s directive mentions.
“Safety zones are explicitly recognised in the Artemis Accords,” she says.
“They are a notification and consultation zone to be declared in advance in order to avoid harmful interference.
“They must be temporary in nature and do not establish state jurisdiction, e.g. they cannot be enforced.”