Richard Varvill reflects on the emotional collapse of Reaction Engines, a UK aerospace firm that developed cutting-edge heat exchanger tech for hypersonic flight.

Originating from the 1980s Hotol project, the company came close to success but failed in late 2024 due to a lack of funding, despite promising tech and support from major investors like Rolls-Royce.

Staff were devastated, with many in tears during the final announcement. Former team members take pride in the innovation and culture, though regret the mission remains unfinished.

The company’s closure highlights the harsh reality of funding gaps in long-term aerospace ventures

“we failed because we ran out of money.”

  • @propitiouspanda@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    17 days ago

    “we failed because we ran out of money.”

    This is because of the growing disparity in wealth.

    Capitalism does not incentivize innovation.

  • AbuTahirOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    107 days ago

    i really wanted a spaceplane, guess we can’t have nice things

      • AbuTahirOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        it also said in the article

        What lessons can we draw for other high-tech ventures? “You definitely have no choice but to be optimistic,” says Mr Dissel.

        it makes sense why people hype up tech, if they all remain down to earth then they won’t get any where, i hope more people on internet understood this

        a similar adage was said by the planned obsolesce of bulb video of a scientist

      • AbuTahirOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        17 days ago

        but they also stated that

        The grim procedure of winding down the business took over as passwords and laptops were collected while servers were backed up in case “some future incarnation of the business can be preserved”.

        which means maybe there is chance someone might pick it up in future

    • @rah@hilariouschaos.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -5
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Here’s an idea: why not take care of people’s basic needs like water, food and shelter, and then build a spaceplane?

      • @AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        67 days ago

        That’s not a trade off.

        Taking care of people basic needs is not a technology problem or even a resources problem. It’s political, economic, corruption, logistics, whatever variation decides who gets what and how it gets there. We already have the resources and technology to do this

        Advanced research projects have no effect on whether the politico-economic system takes care of people’s basic needs. It does, however, help advance society, enhance our capabilities, create new opportunities to improve our lives

        • @rah@hilariouschaos.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -47 days ago

          We already have the resources and technology to do this

          But not the will. Because people are focused on building spaceplanes instead of focused on what matters.

          • @AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            47 days ago

            Not at all. The people who are motivated by advancing technology, aren’t motivated to overcome corruption, incline equality, to replace economic systems, etc.

            All you’d be doing is stifling innovation, improvement, a reason for hope in the future, for …… the same unmet needs, but now with less hope

            • @rah@hilariouschaos.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              0
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              The people who are motivated by advancing technology, aren’t motivated to overcome corruption, incline equality, to replace economic systems, etc.

              That seems a bit presumptuous. Why do you think people who are motivated to advance technology aren’t motivated to overcome corruption, etc.?

              All you’d be doing is stifling innovation, improvement, a reason for hope in the future

              I disagree. I don’t see why focussing on feeding and housing people implies stifling innovation. And do you not see feeding and housing everyone to be an improvement and a reason for hope in the future?

              • @AA5B@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                15 days ago

                I don’t see it as a zero sum game. On the contrary, I see advancing science and technology as an investment in our future that makes it easier to take care of our people, and stagnation as making it harder to care for our people

          • Blaster M
            link
            fedilink
            English
            27 days ago

            A few people are focused on this tech, the majority of people who are in a position or job that can in fact end world hunger are held back for reasons.