this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2025
28 points (93.8% liked)

Technology

71224 readers
3560 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.”

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Allah@lemm.ee 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

[–] Lembot_0003@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yes, but you can have 14.768 types of smartphones and colourful stickers. Isn't it better?

[–] Allah@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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

[–] Allah@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day 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 -3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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 6 points 1 day ago (1 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

[–] rah@hilariouschaos.com -2 points 1 day ago (2 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.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day 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

[–] Blaster_M@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day 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.

[–] propitiouspanda@lemmy.cafe 1 points 23 hours ago

“we failed because we ran out of money.”

This is because of the growing disparity in wealth.

Capitalism does not incentivize innovation.