The Voice News : For decades, Reaction Engines held onto a bold dream: to revolutionize aerospace with a groundbreaking jet engine that could one day power a reusable space plane. But despite years of innovation, high-profile investors, and public funding, the dream collapsed in late 2024 — just as success seemed within reach.
“It was going great — until it fell apart,” says Richard Varvill, the company’s former Chief Technology Officer, reflecting on the emotional toll of seeing the venture unravel. The collapse, he says, was more than a business failure — it was the end of a mission decades in the making.
From Vision to Collapse
Reaction Engines emerged from the ashes of the 1980s Hotol project — a UK space plane concept that captured imaginations with the possibility of flying into orbit from a runway. At the heart of this concept was a radical new technology: an ultra-efficient heat exchanger designed to cool incoming air from over 1,000°C at hypersonic speeds — temperatures that would otherwise melt aircraft components.
By 2024, Reaction Engines had successfully developed the heat exchanger and was testing it in the UK and US, even securing funding from the UK Ministry of Defence for hypersonic aircraft research in partnership with Rolls-Royce.
But by October, that momentum wasn’t enough. With dwindling cash reserves and major investors pulling back, the company couldn’t cross what aerospace insiders call the “Valley of Death” — the treacherous phase between breakthrough innovation and commercial viability.
A Harsh End
“Rolls-Royce said it had other priorities, and the UK military just doesn’t have the money,” says Varvill. “We were so close. That’s what made it even more painful — we failed just as we were turning things around with an improved engine.”
In the final days, the atmosphere was bleak. Employees were called into a lecture theatre and told the board had “tried everything.” Passes were handed in, desks cleared. Some wept. Others were stunned.
“A few people were in tears,” Varvill recalls. “A lot were shocked. We had hoped we could pull it off right until the end.”
Still, there was a need to mark the end of an era. “We had a very large party at my house,” he adds. “Otherwise, it would have been even more disheartening.”
A Mission Unfulfilled
Kathryn Evans, who led the company’s space efforts and worked closely on defence projects, describes the moment the company shut down: “It was October 31st, a Thursday. I knew it was bad news, but when you’re made redundant with immediate effect, it doesn’t sink in right away. We had been fighting to the very end — and then my adrenaline just crashed.”
A colleague brought a Polaroid camera to capture final moments. Staff posted farewell messages on a board, reflecting on what the company meant to them.
Evans wrote: “I will very much miss working with brilliant minds in a kind, supportive culture.”
Now, she reflects on what might have been. “It was British engineering at its best. It’s important that people hold their heads high. The mission may be unfinished, but the potential of the technology remains.”
A Cry for Support
Adam Dissel, president of Reaction Engines’ US division, says the technology had matured and consistently performed well. But strategic investors — including Boeing, BAE Systems, and Rolls-Royce — weren’t willing to provide further financial backing, which spooked other potential supporters.
“The technology worked. But when your lead investors aren’t excited, no one else will be,” Dissel says.
It was heartbreaking for the team. “We absolutely shed tears. At our final meeting, we joined hands and I told them: ‘We still did great. Take a bow.’”
Lessons in Innovation
Winding down the company was a somber process. Laptops and ID badges were collected, servers backed up, and administrators prepared to seek a buyer for the company’s intellectual property. The company had existed in various forms for 35 years.
“We didn’t want it to disappear into rust,” says Dissel. “Maybe someone will pick up the torch.”
Reaction Engines pushed the limits of engineering — designing systems for the fastest speeds and highest temperatures. “We bit off the hardest challenge,” he says.
In the end, Varvill’s summary is blunt: “We failed because we ran out of money.” A harsh truth, but a familiar one in the high-stakes world of advanced aerospace.