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.”

all 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [S] 11 points 1 year ago (13 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 year 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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year 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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    stagnation

    Why do you see feeding and housing everyone as stagnation?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Stop being obtuse. Giving up advancements in science and technology is stagnation. Thinking it’s a good idea to not do anything until people are fed and housed is stagnation. Again, it’s not a zero sum game. Those unfed and unhoused people are not that way because of investments in technology and science, and not doing those things will not affect those people

    Focus your nonsense on corruption, exploitation, capitalistic excess, income disparities and most of all elected people with empathy ….. that are the cause and could help

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Giving up advancements in science and technology is stagnation.

    That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting giving up some particular, potential advancements in science and tecnology, which is a whole different kettle of fish and does not imply stagnation.

    Thinking it’s a good idea to not do anything until people are fed and housed is stagnation.

    Why do you think that?

  • source
  • parent