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.”
Here’s an idea: why not take care of people’s basic needs like water, food and shelter, and then build a spaceplane?
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
But not the will. Because people are focused on building spaceplanes instead of focused on what matters.
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
That seems a bit presumptuous. Why do you think people who are motivated to advance technology aren’t motivated to overcome corruption, etc.?
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?
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
Why do you see feeding and housing everyone as stagnation?
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
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.
Why do you think that?
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.