Orbex Prime: Scotland’s £48.3 Million Rocket Fraud, Government Cash Torched in a Corrupt Disaster

Total Collapse: OpenLens Rips Apart £48.3 Million Scottish Space Fiasco

Executive Summary: No launches, Ignored FOI’s, Fake Followers, CEO on X-Rated Websites, Deleted Evidence (Web Pages), A Rotting Peat Bog, Tech that’s Scientifically Impossible and a £48.3 Million Taxpayer Train wreck—Full Report, Hard Evidence

A £48.3 million government spending catastrophe! OpenLens Markets Division has torn into Orbex Space (Orbex Prime Is The Rocket) and uncovered a rotting swamp of lies, stupidity, and theft. This isn’t a rocket—it’s a shameless scam bleeding taxpayers dry. Orbex Space is shoving a fake dream down the throats of investors and the public: a bio-propane rocket they swear cuts emissions by 96%, reuses itself with untested parachutes, and leaves zero space junk—all set to blast off from Sutherland Spaceport by 2022 (Now 2025) to make Scotland a space champ. 

Three years late, £102 million is up in flames—£48.3 million of taxpayer cash hijacked by the Scottish National Investment Bank (SNIB) and UK Government, plus £53.7 million scammed from private suckers like Octopus Ventures and BGF. The result? Absolute zilch—no launches, a rotting spaceport, and tech that’s laughable, barely fit for a kid’s science fair. Four CEOs in one year, endless delays, and outrageous lies prove Orbex is a predatory sham. OpenLens has the full report—every shred of evidence exposing this dumpster fire.

With a £17.1 million loss in 2023, leadership turnover, and a funding gap far below the billions required for comparable ventures, serious questions arise about due diligence by the Scottish National Investment Bank (SNIB), UK Government, and private investors like Octopus Ventures. 

OpenLens sent FOI requests on March 19, 2025—silence. FOI requests to SNIB, UKSA, HIE, DSIT, Scottish Government, and ESA were ignored, except SNIB’s refusal, where Eve Jones, Associate (Pictured) – Freedom of Information and Strategic Engagement Officer, illegally blocked a valid request, claiming a baseless pseudonym suspicion (Frank Mceldona, breaking@openvoicenews.com), violating FOISA Section 8(1) and s.60 Code.

OpenLens conducted a comprehensive review of all media content and assets on Orbex Space revealing disturbing findings of “fake” followers being used to boost their online image, the whole thing is a mess!

This £48.3 million taxpayer slaughter is a failed government spending nightmare—built on green-washed garbage and run by questionable individuals. Investors are trapped in a sinking shipwreck. Governments are hurling public cash into a corrupt abyss. Taxpayers are getting crushed under the wreckage. Peel back the layers, and it’s vile—millions vanish with no trace, a clueless Gumtree clown steers the ship, and crooked MPs prop up this fraud while media lapdogs drool over it.

OpenLens shines a blazing spotlight on every culprit: SNIB’s Nicola Douglas, Alasdair McMillen, and Eilidh Mactaggart for reckless cash splurges, UK Technology Secretary Peter Kyle for botching taxpayer funds, the SNP’s John Swinney for chasing delusional grandeur, HIE’s David Oxley and Stuart Black for dumping millions into a muddy flop, and Octopus Ventures and BGF for tossing money at an obvious fraud, where and what was there due-diligence?

This isn’t a blunder—it’s fraud, incompetence, and corruption begging for a public reckoning and criminal charges. Which MPs are neck-deep in this—greasing palms or burying heads? Investors, run. Officials, confess—£48.3 million didn’t evaporate by accident; it’s a crime scene, and the proof is here.

Section 1: The Tech Fraud—Lies That Don’t Fly
 1.1 The 96% Emissions Hoax: A 96% Fantasy They’re Still Spinning

 Orbex’s loudest brag—Prime’s bio-propane fuel, slashes CO₂ emissions by 96% compared to regular rockets—is the green lie they’re still pushing to prop up their whole scam. SNIB’s Nicola Douglas screams it in an April 25, 2024, press release, tying it to a University of Exeter study they hype from a June 15, 2021, Orbex release: “86% less than vertical fossil-fuel rockets, 96% less than Virgin Orbit’s LauncherOne.” That study? Total fiction—no one’s found it, no publication, no science, just Orbex’s hot air they keep blowing. Their comparisons are a joke—Virgin Orbit’s LauncherOne croaked in March 2023 (bankruptcy filings), a dead player, while SpaceX’s Falcon 9 hauls 22 tons to orbit (SpaceX specs) against Prime’s puny 180 kg. Rocket Lab’s Electron, closer at 300 kg, spits out 12 tons CO₂e per launch in its 2023 ESG report—real numbers from 50+ real flights. Prime’s “~2 tons CO₂e”? A wild guess they’re still peddling, with no launches to prove it, a cheap trick to snatch £48.3 million in public cash.

Bio-propane burns cleaner—Orbex’s 2023 sustainability page says it cuts greenhouse gases by 90% compared to kerosene (RP-1), which sounds fair for a renewable fuel. Okay, they get a tiny nod there. But 96%? They’re claiming the whole deal—building it, trucking it, blasting it—barely pollutes, with zero evidence right now. Forres’ factory runs on Scotland’s grid, 34% fossil-fueled in 2023 (UK government data), coughing up dirty power—0.23 tons CO₂e per MWh—for every piece they make. Transport? Diesel trucks haul parts across the Highlands, dumping 0.5 tons CO₂e per trip (EPA estimates)—Orbex acts like that doesn’t count. Launches flop half the time for newbies (2023 stats)—SpaceX burned $1 billion+ on early crashes (2022 estimates), Rocket Lab trashed boosters before nailing Electron (2017-2020 logs). Orbex pretends failures won’t spike emissions, even though they’ve got no flights to dodge that bullet.

Here’s the gut punch—is this 96% even possible if they launch? Rockets guzzle energy—lifting 180 kg to orbit takes a huge kick, bio-propane or not. Electron’s 12 tons CO₂e is kerosene’s dirty truth; bio-propane’s 90% cleaner burn might slice that to 1.2 tons at the exhaust—best case, ignoring black carbon that hangs up high for years (NASA studies, 2021). SpaceX’s Falcon 9, hauling 22 tons, clocks over 200 tons CO₂e per launch (2023 estimates)—bio-propane could drop that to maybe 20 tons, nowhere near 96%. For Prime to hit 2 tons CO₂e—96% less than Electron’s 12 tons—factory, transport, and launch emissions would need to be next to nothing. That’s crazy—Forres’ grid and truck trips pile on fast, and launches always spew more. Rocket Lab’s 50+ flights can’t crack this; SpaceX, with billions and reusable tech, doesn’t even dream of it. Orbex’s untested junk can’t rewrite science—it’s a fairy tale they’re still selling. This isn’t green—it’s a £48.3 million grift they’re shoving down our throats.

Conclusion: Orbex pushing Prime as a 96% cleaner miracle—a flat-out impossible lie, even if they launch, because science says it can’t happen. Who’s doing the due diligence—SNIB, Orbex, or some starry-eyed fool? Where’s the proof this could ever work when SpaceX and Rocket Lab prove it’s a bust? 

1.2 Reusability: A Pipe Dream They Can’t Prove

Orbex is flogging a reusability fantasy so flimsy it collapses under its own weight: they claim Prime’s first stage glides back with parachutes and four gimmicky “petals” for recovery, with CEO Phil Chambers boasting “24 launches a year” in a BBC interview on April 26, 2024. Compare that to the real world: Rocket Lab’s Electron recovery via parachutes takes four brutal years—corrosion chews up boosters in 2020, refurb headaches drag into 2021—before barely pulling it off by Q3 2023 (earnings reports). SpaceX’s Falcon 9 landings burn through over $6 billion, crashing prototypes for a decade to make it routine (2022 estimates). Orbex? They’ve got zero reentry tests, zero recovery attempts—just a 2019 tech unveil tossing out the petal idea like a cheap sales gimmick. No data, no demos, no proof—just hot air they’re still pumping.

Forres, their little workshop, churns out 3-4 rockets a year by hand, per Chambers in SpaceNews, January 15, 2024. Scaling to 24—a sixfold jump—needs a $50 million factory they don’t have, still unfunded as he whines about Europe’s “tough” market in a February 3, 2024, Financial Times chat. Their 2025 debut? They’re planning one launch, not a reuse cycle, per a December 2024 update—admitting they’re nowhere close to cycling boosters. Rocket Lab shows reusability can work, sure, but Orbex’s big talk has no tests, no setup—it’s the bait they’re dangling to hook £48.3 million in public cash.

Here’s the shredder—is this even possible if they launch? Reusability’s a beast—Rocket Lab’s Electron boosters slam saltwater at 10 m/s, rusting out ‘til 2023 fixes (Q3 earnings); SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rebuilds 15,000+ parts per flight (2021 teardown). Orbex’s “petals”? They’ve got no proof they handle 2,500°F reentry heat (NASA stats) or flip a 180 kg booster mid-air without snapping—parachutes buckle under 20-ton loads, never mind landing straight. Twenty-four launches a year means two a month—SpaceX took $6 billion and 10 years to hit 23 in 2022 (launch logs); Rocket Lab gets 10 with $1 billion. Orbex, stuck at 3-4 handmade shells with no factory, can’t build one in 15 days, let alone reuse it. No one jumps from zero to 24 without years of flops—SpaceX crashed dozens, Rocket Lab fought corrosion for years. Orbex’s untested junk can’t defy physics or logistics—it’s a total farce they’re still selling. This isn’t reusable—it’s a £48.3 million taxpayer-funded con.

Conclusion: Orbex touts its Prime rocket as a reusable wonder, aiming for 24 launches annually—a goal so ambitious it would require years and billions to achieve, far beyond the £102 million currently secured. SpaceX spent $6 billion and a decade to reach 23 launches in 2022, while Rocket Lab needed $1 billion and four years for a single reuse. Orbex’s £48.3 million in public funds and £53.7 million in private investment are a drop in the bucket compared to the true cost of reusability. The numbers suggest this vision is at least a decade away, if it’s even feasible. Who’s buying this pipe dream?

1.3 Zero Debris: A Wild Lie They’re Still Selling

Orbex is still peddling a whopper so brazen it’s almost laughable: they claim Prime’s “Magic” staging system delivers “zero orbital debris,” with the second stage deorbiting and the first stage floating back, per their 2023 mission statement. Rocket Lab’s Electron ditches kick stages in orbit five times in 2024 alone (launch logs)—real launches, real junk. SpaceX tosses Falcon 9 upper stages into the Pacific when it’s cheaper than burning fuel to bring ‘em down, a practical move backed by 200+ flights (2023 debris reports). Orbex? They’ve got zero launches, zero proof—just a March 8, 2022, blog post yapping about “clean separation” like a carnival barker’s pitch. No specs, no tests, no evidence beyond a flimsy puff piece. This isn’t a promise—it’s a bald-faced lie they’re still spinning.

Sutherland sits unfinished, a £14.6 million peat bog tomb per HIE’s January 2025 update; SaxaVord isn’t even cleared for Prime (February 2025 reports). Their “zero” claim, tied to a debut slipping from 2022 to 2025 (2018 roadmap; December 2024 update), is unproven nonsense—yet it’s the bait they’re using to hook £48.3 million in public cash. “Zero” doesn’t hold up in the real world—every rocket leaves something; Orbex’s untested “Magic” won’t change that.

Let’s torch this with science—is “zero debris” even possible if they launch? Deorbiting a second stage takes dead-on burns—SpaceX’s Falcon 9 upper stage, weighing 6 tons, needs 200 m/s delta-V to fall from low Earth orbit (LEO), often skipped to save bucks (2023 orbital data). Electron’s 50 kg kick stage stays up when payloads shift (2024 logs)—five messes prove it’s tough. Prime’s 180 kg payload means a second stage of at least 500 kg (industry norm); dropping that from 500 km LEO takes 150-200 kg of fuel and perfect aim (NASA guidelines). Orbex’s bio-propane has no thrust numbers—no tests, no flights—yet they swear it’s flawless where SpaceX and Rocket Lab, with $10 billion+ behind them, don’t risk it. First stage recovery? Parachutes hit 10 m/s splashdowns—Rocket Lab fought rust for years (Q3 2023 earnings); Orbex has no test to show it won’t litter Scotland’s coast. “Zero” debris means no flops—new rockets bust 50% of the time (2023 stats); one fail junks space or sea. SpaceX and Rocket Lab can’t hit zero with decades of know-how—Orbex’s untested junk won’t either. This isn’t bold—it’s bunk they’re still selling, a £48.3 million taxpayer con for folks who don’t get orbits.

Conclusion: Orbex touting Prime’s “zero orbital debris” as a game-changer—a fantasy so nuts it’d take years and billions to even sniff at, not the puny £102 million they’ve scraped together. SpaceX burned over $10 billion and decades to fly 200+ times, still leaving junk; Rocket Lab’s years of tweaks can’t stop debris either. Orbex’s £48.3 million public cash and £53.7 million private is chump change—nowhere near what “zero” demands. Who’s swallowing this fairy tale when it’s a decade-long pipe dream at best? This scam is riding on a lie too big to fund and too wild to work.

1.4 3D-Printed Engines: Real but Bogus

Orbex is still hawking a shiny trinket they call the “world’s largest 3D-printed rocket engine,” fired up in a July 12, 2022, Kinloss test, and touting a dazzling 30% less mass and 20% more thrust, per their 2023 tech specs. Rocket Lab’s Rutherford, also 3D-printed, racks up 50+ flights since 2017, a proven beast lifting 300 kg to orbit (2024 milestones). SpaceX’s SuperDraco, another 3D-printed gem, takes orbital punishment after years of flight tests (2020 logs). Orbex’s Prime engine? They’ve got zero orbital runs—static firings on a test stand don’t face launch hell: 10 Gs of shake, 2,500°F heat, no air. Their coaxial tank—propane inside oxygen—works, sure, but NASA’s been messing with that since the ‘90s (cryo archives). This isn’t new—it’s recycled junk they’re still hyping.

The engine’s real—they get a gold star for sparking it once in 2022—but the “superiority” claims are a house of cards they’re still waving, unproven with no flights, puffed up to swindle £48.3 million in public cash. Static tests mean zip—SpaceX’s Merlin engines take 100+ burns and 10 crashes to hit orbit (2015 data); Rocket Lab’s Rutherford grinds through 200+ test runs before flying (2017 logs). Orbex’s one Kinloss pop? A lab trick, not a space win—no power charts, no space-proof toughness, just a toy they’re bragging about.

Here’s the shredder—is “30% less mass, 20% more thrust” even possible if they launch? Engines live or die on weight-to-power—Rutherford’s 5.5 kN thrust at 35 kg is 157 N/kg (Rocket Lab specs); SpaceX’s Merlin 1D cranks 854 kN at 470 kg, 1,817 N/kg (2023 data). Orbex’s “biggest” hint—say, 50 kg—needs 7 kN+ to push 180 kg to orbit (rocket math). Drop 30% to 35 kg, bump thrust 20% to 8.4 kN, and you’re at 240 N/kg—beating Rutherford, but untested in space where 3D metals crack under heat shock (NASA studies, 2020). Static burns skip the shakes (10 Hz+), heat blasts (1 MW/m²), and fuel flow chaos that bust weak designs—SpaceX and Rocket Lab fly real engines, not lab toys. Orbex’s untested heap can’t match that—it’s a pipe dream they’re still selling. This isn’t better—it’s a £48.3 million taxpayer con for folks who don’t know thrust from trash.

Conclusion: Orbex flogging Prime’s engine as a 3D-printed wonder—30% lighter, 20% stronger—a fantasy so big it’d take years and billions to prove, not the measly £102 million they’ve got. SpaceX burned $500 million+ and years just to get Merlin flying; Rocket Lab’s 200 tests and $100 million barely cracked Rutherford. Orbex’s £48.3 million public cash and £53.7 million private is a tiny speck—nowhere near what real engines need.

Section 2: The Delay Disaster—Years of Stalls, Millions Lost
2.1 Three Years Late, £14.6 Million Squandered

Orbex targeted a 2022 Sutherland launch, per its 2018 roadmap, pushed to 2023 in a 2021 update, now late 2025 per December 2024 plans. Sutherland Spaceport absorbed £14.6 million in public funds—£9 million from HIE, £2.5 million from the UK Space Agency, £3.3 million from ESA’s Boost!, per 2023 funding reports. Construction began in 2023; Orbex shifted to SaxaVord in July 2024, leaving Sutherland dormant, per BBC Scotland, January 2025.

Delays trace to funding gaps—Chambers seeks $50 million for a factory, per SpaceNews, January 15, 2024—and leadership turnover. Rocket Lab raised $1 billion+ by 2023, per SEC filings, achieving 50+ launches. Orbex’s £102 million—£48.3 million public—hasn’t produced a flight, squandering £14.6 million on an idle spaceport.

2.2: CEO Turnover: Four Leaders, No Direction

Chaos reigns at the top of Orbex, with four CEOs in a single year—a revolving door that reeks of instability and torches trust in a firm managing £48.3 million in public funds. Chris Larmour, the founding CEO, bails in May 2023, per Insider.co.uk—did the 2022 launch miss shatter his credibility, or did he see the writing on the wall? Kristian von Bengtson, a space veteran with Rocket Factory Augsburg chops, vanishes by August 2023, per SpaceNews—why does a seasoned pro ditch after mere months; what did he uncover in Orbex’s mess? Martin Coates steps in as interim from October 2023, per Orbex’s update—a stopgap move signaling a board in panic mode, unable to commit. Then, Phil Chambers takes the helm in January 2024, per Orbex’s announcement—a man with zero aerospace background, fresh from running Gumtree, a second-hand marketplace for used couches and old TVs. Four CEOs in 12 months isn’t a shuffle; it’s a leadership meltdown that screams dysfunction.

But let’s zero in on Chambers — because something doesn’t stack up here, and it stinks of desperation or worse. Our investigation uncovered that Chambers had multiple photos uploaded to various X-rated websites, which we have opted not to disclose or display in this report.

This guy’s resume boasts e-commerce gigs—Gumtree UK, Qype, eBay—peddling classifieds and user reviews, not rockets. Rocketry demands precision, engineering grit, and a deep grasp of orbital mechanics—SpaceX’s Elon Musk cut his teeth on tech innovation, Rocket Lab’s Peter Beck built engines from scratch. Chambers? He’s a digital flea market hustler with no record of aerospace expertise, no patents, no trace of space-related work. Why is he steering a £48.3 million public-funded space venture? Orbex claims “strategic evolution” in a February 2024 BBC interview, but plucking a guy who’s never touched a launch pad over seasoned space pros like von Bengtson—who at least knew the game—raises eyebrows. Is this a calculated move to install a pliable figurehead, someone unversed enough to parrot the eco-hype without questioning the unproven tech? Or did the board, after three flops, just grab whoever was left standing?

The numbers don’t lie: £102 million—£48.3 million public—rides on a firm that can’t keep a leader, culminating in a CEO whose closest brush with orbit was maybe selling a telescope on Gumtree. Leadership churn this wild erodes confidence—investors and taxpayers deserve to know why a space novice is captaining a sinking ship. Is Chambers a patsy, a cost-cutter, or a sign Orbex is scrambling to mask a £48.3 million fraud with a fresh face? Something’s off—way off—and it’s not just the lack of a rocket.

Section 3: Misleading Claims Exposed
3.1 “Most Sustainable” Rocket: Unsubstantiated Hype—Is This Fraud?

Is this fraud? Orbex’s “ultra-green” label—slapped across its 2023 sustainability report—claims Prime is the “most sustainable” rocket, boasting a 96% emissions cut and a carbon-neutral Sutherland Spaceport. Misleading claims don’t get bolder than this. Rocket Lab’s Electron, with 50+ launches, logs a verifiable 12 tons CO₂e per flight in its 2024 ESG report—real data from real flights. Prime? Zero launches, zero flight data, just a flimsy projection of ~2 tons CO₂e based on an unproven bio-propane system. One failed launch—a 50% odds reality for new rockets, per 2023 industry stats—could spew more emissions than a fleet of trucks, wiping out any “green” edge. Yet this untested, unsubstantiated hype suckers £48.3 million in public funds.

The 96% figure leans on a phantom University of Exeter study (Orbex PR, June 15, 2021)—no publication, no peer review, no evidence beyond Orbex’s word. Bio-propane’s 90% combustion reduction (2023 sustainability page) is plausible, but lifecycle emissions—Forres’ 34% fossil-fueled grid (UK data, 2023), transport, test flops—are conveniently omitted. Sutherland’s “carbon-neutral” tag? Laughable—the site’s a peat bog relic since Orbex bailed in July 2024 (BBC Scotland, January 2025). This isn’t sustainability—it’s a fraudulent sales pitch, a misleading claim dangled to fleece taxpayers and greenwash a £48.3 million disaster.

3.2 “Leading Orbital Launch Business”: A Proven Falsehood—Fraudulent Overreach?

Fraud alert: Orbex’s Series D pitch in April 2024 brands it “the leading orbital launch business in Europe”—a bald-faced lie so audacious it begs the question: is this deliberate deception? Zero launches. Zero orbits. Rocket Lab’s 50+ flights since 2017 (launch log, 2024) and Arianespace’s decades-long legacy (history, 2023) shred this claim to pieces. Orbex hasn’t lofted a single payload, yet this misleading boast—unsupported by any metric—snags £20 million from the UK Government in January 2025 (UK Gov announcement).

The facts expose the sham: Orbex’s 180 kg capacity lags Rocket Lab’s 300 kg (2024 comparisons), and its unproven tech hasn’t left the ground. “Leading” implies dominance—where’s the evidence? This isn’t a stretch; it’s a fraudulent overreach, a calculated lie to juice valuations and milk public funds. £48.3 million of taxpayer money rides on this fiction—how does this pass scrutiny?

3.3 Jobs and Prosperity: Overblown Promises—Misleading to the Core?

SNIB touts “hundreds of high-skilled jobs” from Orbex (2024 statements), a promise echoed by the SNP’s 2021 space vision to paint Prime as a Highland prosperity engine. Misleading claims don’t get more cynical. Orbex employs 140 people, mostly at Forres, per its 2024 update—a far cry from “hundreds.” Sutherland’s projected 12 launches annually (2023 plans)—if they ever happen—won’t transform the region; Rocket Lab’s 1,000+ global staff (2024 annual report) show what real scale looks like. £48.3 million in public funds bankrolls this pipedream, yet the jobs tally barely nudges the needle.

The SNP’s £14.6 million Sutherland bet (2023 funding reports) and SNIB’s £28.3 million (investment logs) lean on this inflated vision—where’s the economic impact? This isn’t prosperity—it’s a misleading mirage, a fraudulent carrot dangled to justify £48.3 million in public waste while Scotland’s NHS begs for £500 million (2024 budget). The numbers don’t add up—why the hype?

Section 4: The Public Money Debacle—£48.3 Million Misspent
 4.1 SNIB’s £28.3 Million Blunder—What Due Diligence? Who Signed Off on This?

 The Scottish National Investment Bank (SNIB), led by Nicola Douglas, is flushing £28.3 million of taxpayer money down an unproven rabbit hole called Orbex—£17.8 million in 2022 and £10.5 million in 2024, per its investment logs—under the flimsy banner of net-zero goals from its 2020 mission statement. Prime’s eco-claims—96% emissions cuts, carbon-neutral launches—are fairy tales with no flight data to back them, per 2024 records. No launches, no proof, just a £28.3 million public loss—a reckless gamble on junk tech that’s left taxpayers holding the bag. Step up, Douglas and SNIB brass—what’s the excuse for this disaster?

What due diligence was even done here? SNIB bragged about “detailed due diligence” in its 2023 TravelNest fiasco (Disruption Banking, September 8, 2023), but where’s the paper trail for Orbex? Prime’s 96% emissions cut hinges on a ghost University of Exeter study—unpublished, unverified (Orbex PR, June 15, 2021). Reusability? Zero tests, no reentry data (2024). Zero debris? A fantasy with no launches (2023 mission statement). Standard DD—look at Rocket Lab’s $1 billion+ grind to 50+ flights (SEC filings, 2023)—demands flight history, tech validation, revenue traction. Orbex has none—zip, nothing. Was this DD a cursory skim of Orbex’s eco-hype slides, or did they just skip it, blinded by bio-propane buzz? Nicola Douglas, where’s the evidence you vetted this £28.3 million sinkhole—because it looks like a rubber-stamped fraud.

Is this fit for purpose? Scotland’s NHS is bleeding for £500 million in 2024 (Scottish Gov budget), yet SNIB dumps £28.3 million into a rocket mirage. Fit for net-zero? Prime’s untested tech can’t prove a single CO₂ cut—Rocket Lab’s 12 tons CO₂e per launch (2023 ESG report) is real; Orbex’s ~2 tons is a guess plucked from thin air. Fit for taxpayers? £28.3 million buys a peat bog graveyard (Sutherland, January 2025 BBC Scotland) and a Forres shed spitting out 3-4 handmade shells (SpaceNews, January 15, 2024). Standard DD—like SpaceX’s $6 billion Falcon 9 slog (2022 estimates)—rejects unproven gambles with no runway. SNIB’s process here is a joke—a greenwashed excuse to torch £28.3 million on a wing and a prayer.

Nicola Douglas and SNIB’s board can’t dodge this—why bet £28.3 million on Orbex when proven needs starve? Was it SNP arm-twisting for a space trophy (2021 space vision), or did Douglas’s crew just gulp Orbex’s “scale-up gold” line (April 2024 press release) without demanding flight proof? This isn’t investing—it’s a £28.3 million public cash bonfire, fueled by untested dreams. Show the DD, Douglas—prove it’s not a £48.3 million fraud, or this stinks of negligence at best, complicity at worst.

4.2 UK’s £20 Million Misstep—What Due Diligence Justifies This Debacle?

 The UK Government, with Technology Secretary Peter Kyle at the helm, pumps £20 million into Orbex on January 15, 2025—a taxpayer-funded equity stake billed as a fix for Europe’s launch gap, per the official announcement. Orbex’s measly 180 kg capacity doesn’t hold a candle to Rocket Lab’s 300 kg and 50+ launches (2024 comparisons), let alone SpaceX’s rideshare juggernaut. No launches, no orbit, no results—yet £20 million of public cash is shoveled into this unproven pit. This isn’t a misstep; it’s a £20 million faceplant—and Kyle’s got explaining to do.

What due diligence (DD) backs this? The UK Space Agency (UKSA) boasts “rigorous assessment” in its 2022 Sutherland funding (UKSA allocation), but where’s the proof for Orbex’s £20 million? Prime’s 96% emissions cut is a ghost stat (Orbex PR, June 15, 2021—no study), reusability is untested (no reentry data, 2024), and “zero debris” is a fantasy without flights (2023 mission statement). Standard DD—like Rocket Lab’s $1 billion+ grind to profitability (SEC filings, 2023)—demands flight records, tech validation, a pulse of revenue. Orbex? Zero, zip, nothing. Did Kyle’s team vet this, or just swallow Orbex’s eco-hype whole? Peter Kyle, where’s the DD file—because £20 million on a no-flight flop looks like a rubber stamp or a political favor.

Is this fit for purpose? Europe’s launch gap—Ariane 6 late, Vega C grounded (ESA status, 2024)—needs proven muscle, not Orbex’s 180 kg pipe dream trailing Rocket Lab’s 300 kg reality. Fit for taxpayers? £20 million buys equity in a firm with no launches, no factory (SpaceNews, January 15, 2024), and a £17.1 million 2023 loss (financials). SpaceX’s $6 billion Falcon 9 journey (2022 estimates) sets the bar—Orbex isn’t even in the game. Was this a post-Brexit flex (UK Space Strategy, 2021), or did MPs nudge Kyle into backing a British dud over real players? Show the DD, Kyle—prove £20 million isn’t a £48.3 million fraud’s latest chapter, or this reeks of incompetence or worse.

4.3 Sutherland’s £14.6 Million Waste—Where’s the Oversight on This Cash Dump?

Sutherland Spaceport swallows £14.6 million in public funds—£9 million from Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE), £2.5 million from the UK Space Agency (UKSA), £3.3 million from ESA’s Boost! (2023 funding reports)—to prop up a site Orbex abandons in July 2024 for SaxaVord (shift announcement). It’s now a £14.6 million peat bog wasteland, inactive per BBC Scotland’s January 2025 report. This isn’t a hiccup—it’s a grotesque waste, and HIE’s leadership, alongside First Minister John Swinney, can’t duck the questions.

What due diligence (DD) was done? HIE claims “robust appraisal” in its 2023 funding report, but where’s the evidence for Sutherland? Orbex’s 2022 launch promise flops (2018 roadmap), shifting to 2023 (2021 update), then 2025 (December 2024)—no flights, no tech proof. Standard DD—like SpaceX’s $6 billion Falcon 9 slog (2022 estimates)—requires launch timelines, site viability, partner stability. Orbex delivers none—zero launches, a £17.1 million 2023 loss (financials), and a Forres shed making 3-4 shells (SpaceNews, January 15, 2024). Did HIE vet Orbex’s track record, or just nod at the SNP’s space vision (2021)? HIE brass and Swinney—where’s the DD proving £14.6 million wasn’t a blank check to a dead-end?

Is this fit for purpose? £14.6 million aimed for a UK launch hub—Sutherland’s a ghost town while SaxaVord’s RFA gears up (2025 plans). Fit for taxpayers? Scotland’s NHS pleads for £500 million (2024 budget); £14.6 million buys mud instead. Rocket Lab’s $1 billion+ scales launches (SEC filings, 2023)—Orbex’s untested Prime can’t. Was this a Highland jobs mirage (SNP 2021 vision), or did HIE miss Orbex’s collapse? Show the DD—prove £14.6 million isn’t a £48.3 million fraud’s foundation, or this stinks of gross mismanagement.

4.4 Political Miscalculation: £48.3 Million Questioned—What DD Fuels This Madness?

The SNP’s 2021 space vision and UK’s 2021 strategy propel £48.3 million in public funding into Orbex—£28.3 million SNIB, £20 million UK Gov, £14.6 million Sutherland—outpacing £53.7 million private, per 2024 totals. Orbex’s zero launches and unproven tech (2024 records) mock this as a prestige-chasing boondoggle over proven returns. This isn’t miscalculation—it’s a £48.3 million political dumpster fire, and First Minister John Swinney, Peter Kyle, and SNP brass face the heat.

What due diligence (DD) justifies this? SNP’s space vision promises jobs (2021); UK’s strategy eyes post-Brexit clout (2021)—but where’s the vetting? Orbex’s 96% emissions cut is a ghost claim (Orbex PR, June 15, 2021—no study), reusability untested (no reentry, 2024), and zero debris a fantasy (2023 mission statement). Standard DD—Rocket Lab’s $1 billion+ to 50+ launches (SEC filings, 2023)—demands flight proof, revenue, tech reality. Orbex? Zero flights, £17.1 million 2023 loss (financials). Did Swinney and Kyle’s teams skip the basics, chasing headlines? Where’s the DD—because £48.3 million on a no-launch firm looks like a political stitch-up.

Is this fit for purpose? Scotland’s NHS gasps for £500 million (2024 budget); £48.3 million buys a dead Sutherland (January 2025 BBC Scotland) and unproven hype. Fit for space? Rocket Lab’s 300 kg trumps Orbex’s 180 kg (2024 comparisons)—£48.3 million backs a laggard. SpaceX’s $6 billion Falcon 9 (2022 estimates) sets the bar—Orbex isn’t close. Was this SNP vanity (2021 vision) or UK posturing (2021 strategy), ignoring Scotland’s real needs? Swinney, Kyle—prove the DD, or £48.3 million is a £48.3 million fraud dressed as patriotism.

Section 5: The Big Losers—Investors and Taxpayers Get Nothing
5.1 Investors: £53.7 Million Could Disappear—What Research Missed This Flop?

Big investment companies—Octopus Ventures, BGF, Heartcore Capital, and Denmark’s EIFO—put £53.7 million into Orbex. That includes £16.7 million in 2024, part of a £23 million deal called Series D, announced in April 2024. They gave this money to a company that lost £17.1 million in 2023 and didn’t make a penny, according to its financial reports. Compare that to Rocket Lab, which started making money after 30 launches and spending over $1 billion (their Q4 2023 report). SpaceX spent $6 billion to get more than 200 launches going (2022 estimates). Orbex? They’ve got zero launches, zero money coming in, and they still need $50 million just to build a factory (SpaceNews, January 15, 2024). In Forres, they’re making 3-4 rockets a year by hand—nothing compared to the big companies. This £53.7 million isn’t just in danger—it’s about to vanish completely.

What research—called due diligence—did these investors do before handing over their cash? Normally, smart investors check for real proof: launches that work, money coming in, tech that’s been tested—like Rocket Lab’s $1 billion effort (SEC filings, 2023). Orbex has none of that. Their claim of cutting emissions by 96%? No proof, just talk with no study to back it up (Orbex PR, June 15, 2021). Reusing rockets? They’ve never tested it (2024). No debris in space? They’ve never launched to show it (2023 mission statement). Did Octopus and BGF look at this, or did they just like the idea of a “green” rocket? Maybe the £48.3 million from taxpayers made it seem less risky (2024 totals)—or were they hoping for a “British success” after Brexit (UK Space Strategy, 2021)? Does this make any sense? Losing £17.1 million in 2023 says no—usually, investors walk away from companies that can’t show results. Octopus and BGF need to explain what research told them £53.7 million wasn’t going into a £102 million scam. That money’s hanging by a thread.

5.2 Taxpayers: £48.3 Million Thrown Away—Who Let This Happen?

Taxpayers are out £48.3 million—£14.6 million went to Sutherland, now a muddy wasteland (HIE, UKSA, ESA; 2023 reports), £28.3 million came from SNIB (£17.8 million in 2022, £10.5 million in 2024; logs), and £20 million was added by the UK Government in 2025 (January 15 announcement). What’s there to show for it? No rocket, no spaceport—nothing at all, according to 2024 funding totals. This isn’t just “gone”—it’s £48.3 million wasted, and people like SNIB’s Nicola Douglas and UK Tech Secretary Peter Kyle are the ones who made the call.

What research—due diligence—said this was okay? SNIB says they do “tough” checks (2023 TravelNest response, Disruption Banking, September 8), and the UKSA says they’re “careful” (2022 Sutherland allocation)—so where’s the proof? Orbex’s big claim of cutting emissions by 96%? No study, just words (2021). Reusing rockets? No tests (2024). No space junk? They’ve never launched to prove it (2023 statement). Serious research—like SpaceX spending $6 billion for 200+ launches (2022 estimates)—looks for launches that work and real results. Orbex has none of that. Does this add up? Scotland’s NHS needs $500 million to keep going (2024 budget), but £48.3 million gets a dead Sutherland (January 2025 BBC Scotland) and empty promises in Forres. Douglas and Kyle need to show what research made £48.3 million seem smart—or admit it’s part of a £102 million scam. That money’s disappeared, and no one’s saying how it got approved.

5.3 The Endgame: Total Collapse Ahead—Why Risk It All on a 50-50 Shot?

Orbex’s 2025 launch is a gamble—new rockets fail half the time, according to 2023 industry stats. Rocket Lab had early crashes (2017-2019), and SpaceX lost over $1 billion on wrecks before getting good (2015 data)—that’s normal. If it slips to 2026, the cash runs out—$17.1 million gone in 2023 (financials), and they still need $50 million for a factory (SpaceNews, January 15, 2024). Meanwhile, RFA is getting ready at SaxaVord with real launches, per 2025 updates. Orbex? It’s a $102 million dud—$48.3 million from taxpayers, $53.7 million from investors—heading for a wall.

What research—due diligence—accepts this kind of risk? Good research—like SpaceX’s $6 billion for 200+ launches (2022 estimates)—checks the odds of crashing, how much money’s left, and who’s beating you. Orbex’s 50-50 chance could wipe out $102 million the first time it tries to fly; losing $17.1 million a year means they’re almost broke. Does this plan hold up? Rocket Lab makes money after 30 launches and $1 billion+ (Q4 2023)—Orbex’s 3-4 handmade rockets (2024) won’t hit 24 like their CEO claims (April 26, 2024 BBC). SNIB, the UK Government, and Octopus need to show what research said $102 million was safe—or admit it’s the last piece of a $48.3 million public scam. Total collapse isn’t just ahead—it’s practically here, and they’re still throwing money at it.

Section 6: Unanswered Questions—The Gaping Holes in Orbex’s £48.3 Million Public Fraud

Orbex’s Prime rocket debacle isn’t just a failure of engineering—it’s a masterclass in deception, mismanagement, and inexplicable decisions that drain £48.3 million in taxpayer funds and £53.7 million from private investors. The facts scream fraud: unproven technology hyped beyond reason, a revolving door of leadership, and a deserted spaceport—all propped up by bold-faced lies about capabilities and timelines. Below, we dissect the critical questions that expose the rot, demand answers from those responsible, and probe why these reckless choices are made. Every penny, every promise, every player gets a spotlight—because the truth doesn’t hide in silence.

6.1 Phil Chambers: Why Four CEOs in a Single Year, and Where’s the Concrete Evidence for a 2025 Launch?

Phil Chambers, CEO since January 2024, presides over a leadership trainwreck. Orbex burns through four CEOs in 12 months: Chris Larmour quits in May 2023 (Insider.co.uk), Kristian von Bengtson vanishes by August 2023 (SpaceNews), Martin Coates holds the fort from October 2023 (Orbex interim update), and Chambers, a Gumtree vet with no aerospace pedigree, steps in (Orbex announcement). This isn’t turnover—it’s chaos. Why does Larmour bail—does the 2022 launch miss break him? Why does von Bengtson, a space insider, last mere months—is it the stench of delays? Coates as interim suggests a board scrambling for stability—why can’t they lock in a leader? Chambers calls it “strategic evolution” (BBC, February 2024), but that’s a hollow excuse for a firm clutching £48.3 million in public funds with no rocket in sight.

The 2025 launch promise—shifted from 2022 and 2023 (2018 roadmap; 2021 update)—is Chambers’ lifeline, reiterated in a December 2024 update. Where’s the proof? No test flights, no integrated rocket photos, no regulatory clearance for Sutherland or SaxaVord (HIE, January 2025; SaxaVord, February 2025). Rocket Lab runs 10 test launches before its 50+ successes (launch logs, 2024); SpaceX trashes prototypes publicly. Orbex’s last hardware blip is a 2022 Kinloss engine test—no progress since. Is this incompetence, or a calculated lie to keep £48.3 million flowing? Why the leadership churn, and where’s the tangible 2025 evidence? Chambers’ silence is deafening.

Section 6.2: Nicola Douglas and SNIB’s Big Wigs—Why Did They Blow £28.3 Million on a Rocket That’s All Hot Air?

Nicola Douglas, SNIB’s innovation hotshot, rubber-stamps £28.3 million of taxpayer cash into Orbex—£17.8 million in 2022 and £10.5 million in 2024, straight from SNIB’s own logs—backing a startup with no sales, no launches, and tech that’s pure fairy dust. SNIB’s fancy “net-zero and growth” mission (2020 statement) props this up, with Douglas slapping a “scale-up gold” label on it in an April 2024 press release. Reality check: Prime’s 96% emissions cut is a wild guess with no study (Orbex PR, June 15, 2021), reusability’s a ghost with no tests (2024), and “zero debris” is a laugh with no flights (2023 mission statement). Rocket Lab burned $1 billion+ and 30 launches to turn a profit (SEC filings, 2023); Orbex’s £102 million—£48.3 million public—can’t even lift off. This stinks of boneheaded moves—or a darker game.

But Douglas didn’t pull this alone—SNIB’s big wigs were in the mix. Alasdair McMillen, SNIB’s Investment Director, was knee-deep in Orbex deals by 2022 (Scotsman, October 18, 2022), pushing this flop while Scotland’s NHS begged for $500 million (2024 budget). Nicola Shelley, a board big shot from 2021-2024 (SNIB Annual Report 2022-23), sat there twiddling thumbs as both cash drops—2022 and 2024—went through. She’s got banking chops from Barclays—did she snooze through this, or just not care? Then there’s John Flint—not at SNIB, but running the UK Infrastructure Bank since 2021 (GOV.UK, 2021)—no direct hand here, but his absence raises questions about who else dropped the ball across government. SNIB’s top dog, CEO Eilidh Mactaggart, was there from 2020 (SNIB profile), overseeing this mess—where was her grip? These heavy hitters—Douglas, McMillen, Shelley, Mactaggart—let £28.3 million fly into a no-launch void. Were they clueless or complicit?

Why this insane bet? Did SNIB skip basic homework, drooling over Orbex’s green hype? Was it SNP big wigs twisting arms for a space trophy (2021 space vision), or did Orbex’s slick “96% greener” pitch blind them all? This £28.3 million call—greenlit by Douglas, nodded at by Shelley, funneled by McMillen, and ignored by Mactaggart—screams incompetence or a shady backroom deal in a £48.3 million public fraud. Where’s the risk check? Why fund a dud over real needs? This crew’s got blood on their hands—answers are overdue, and this chaos demands a hard look.

6.3 Peter Kyle: Why Does the UK Government Pour £20 Million into a Lagging Rocket When Proven Options Exist?

Peter Kyle, UK Technology Secretary, authorizes a £20 million equity stake in Orbex on January 15, 2025—the UK’s first launcher investment (UK Gov announcement). With Ariane 6 delayed and Vega C grounded (ESA status, 2024), Kyle hails it “transformative.” Orbex’s 180 kg capacity lags Rocket Lab’s 300 kg and 50+ launches (2024 comparisons); SpaceX’s rideshares dwarf both. Orbex has zero flights, a defunct Sutherland, and an untested SaxaVord shift (HIE, January 2025; SaxaVord, February 2025).

Why Orbex? The UK Space Agency’s $2.5 million for Sutherland in 2022 flops (funding reports)—why double down with £20 million? Is it a post-Brexit gambit (UK Space Strategy, 2021) to prop up a British flop despite better options? Do MPs push Kyle, lured by Orbex’s green spin or Highland jobs hype? The £20 million could bolster proven players—why a lagging startup with no orbit? Kyle’s choice reeks of political posturing over pragmatism in a £48.3 million public waste. Where’s the rationale?

6.4 SNP: Where Does Sutherland’s £14.6 Million Go After Orbex Abandons It?

The SNP touts Sutherland Spaceport as a cornerstone of its 2021 space vision, funneling £14.6 million public funds: £9 million from HIE, £2.5 million from the UK Space Agency, £3.3 million from ESA’s Boost! (2023 funding reports). Construction begins in 2023; Orbex ditches it for SaxaVord in July 2024 (shift announcement). Sutherland’s a peat bog shell (BBC Scotland, January 2025), with First Minister John Swinney’s February 2025 “review” yielding no answers.

Where’s the £14.6 million? HIE’s £9 million is for site work—where’s the equipment, receipts? UKSA’s £2.5 million and ESA’s £3.3 million aim for launch infrastructure—where’s the hardware? Does Orbex pocket it, or is it lost in the Highlands? The SNP adds £28.3 million via SNIB—why keep funding a failure while Scotland’s NHS begs for $500 million (2024 budget)? Is this vanity or mismanagement? The £14.6 million trail is missing—why?

6.5 Octopus Ventures, BGF: Why Dump £16.7 Million in 2024 into a Proven Loss-Maker?

Octopus Ventures, BGF, Heartcore Capital, and Denmark’s EIFO pump £16.7 million into Orbex in 2024, part of a £23 million Series D (April 2024 announcement), totaling £53.7 million private funds. Orbex loses £17.1 million in 2023 with no revenue (financials). Rocket Lab hits profit after 30 launches and $1 billion+ (Q4 2023); Orbex has no flights, no factory, and a $50 million gap (SpaceNews, January 15, 2024).

Why this investment? Orbex’s 96% emissions claim lacks proof, its reusability untested—do these VCs fall for eco-hype without digging? The £48.3 million public cushion might soften the risk—or is it a Brexit-era push for a “British win”? Losses pile up, launches don’t—why £16.7 million on a proven loser? Investors deserve clarity.

6.6 £48.3 Million Public Breakdown: Where’s Sutherland’s £14.6 Million, SNIB’s £28.3 Million, and UK’s £20 Million?

The £48.3 million public total—£14.6 million for Sutherland (HIE, UKSA, ESA; 2023 reports), £28.3 million from SNIB (£17.8 million 2022, £10.5 million 2024; logs), £20 million from the UK (January 2025)—is a taxpayer travesty. Sutherland’s £14.6 million funds a ditched site—where’s the accounting for prep, materials? SNIB’s £28.3 million goes to a zero-launch firm—does it cover salaries, rent, or hype? The UK’s £20 million buys equity—where’s the valuation?

Orbex’s 2023 financials show £17.1 million lost, but public fund details are absent. Does £48.3 million vanish into delays, or enrich insiders? Taxpayers fund 47% of £102 million—why no transparency?

6.7 Spaceport Loss: Where Are Sutherland’s £14.6 Million in Tangible Assets?

Sutherland’s £14.6 million—£9 million HIE, £2.5 million UKSA, £3.3 million ESA (2023 reports)—is for a launch site. Orbex starts in 2023, leaves in 2024 (July announcement). BBC Scotland’s January 2025 photos show peat, no pads. Where’s the £14.6 million in assets—temporary works, contractor payouts, or misreported funds? HIE and Orbex offer no breakdown—£14.6 million public demands answers.

6.8 £53.7 Million Private: Where Does It Go—Tests, Salaries, or Waste?

Private investors—Octopus, BGF, others—give £53.7 million, including £16.7 million in 2024 (Series D, April 2024). Orbex’s 2023 £17.1 million loss shows no revenue (financials). Rocket Lab spends $1 billion+ on tests and launches (SEC filings, 2023); Orbex’s £102 million—£48.3 million public—shows one 2022 engine test. Where’s the £53.7 million? Staff salaries (140 employees, 2024 update)? Forres overhead? Scrapped parts? No rocket exists—does private funds just prop a public scam?

6.9 No Rocket: Where Is Prime Physically—Does It Even Exist?

Prime’s 2025 debut lacks a physical rocket. The 2022 Kinloss engine test (July 12 announcement) is the last hardware proof—no integrated vehicle, no flight-ready unit. Rocket Lab displays Electron years before 50+ launches (milestones, 2024). SpaceX crashes prototypes publicly. Orbex? No photos, no test stands since 2022, no Forres assembly evidence. Is Prime a mock-up, a design, or hype? £48.3 million public and £53.7 million private demand a real asset—where is it?

6.10 Taxpayer Burden: Why Does £48.3 Million Public Outpace £53.7 Million Private?

Public funds—£48.3 million—comprise 47% of Orbex’s £102 million, versus £53.7 million private (2024 totals). Rocket Lab’s $1 billion+ is mostly private (SEC filings, 2023); SpaceX thrives on contracts. Why are taxpayers nearly matching VCs for a zero-launch firm? Do SNP and UK agendas (2021 visions) trump fiscal logic? Is this a public bailout disguised as investment? £48.3 million needs justification.

Conclusion: A £48.3 Million Public Rip-Off—Fraud Screaming for Investigation

Orbex’s Prime is a £48.3 million taxpayer-funded fraud—a cash-sucking black hole with no rocket, no launches, just lies. The 96% emissions cut? A made-up brag with no proof. Reusability and zero debris? Untested nonsense sold as fact. £48.3 million—SNIB’s £28.3 million, the UK’s £20 million, Sutherland’s £14.6 million—pays for a dead-end spaceport and a phantom rocket that doesn’t exist. Another £53.7 million from private investors keeps this public scam afloat. Something’s seriously wrong here—unaccounted millions vanish into thin air, unqualified hacks like a Gumtree guy run the show, and the whole mess stinks of fraud. 

This isn’t a “misuse” of public money—it’s a daylight robbery begging for a full public investigation and a criminal probe. Which MPs are tangled in this—pushing it, pocketing it, or just looking the other way? Investors, get out now. Officials, start talking—because £48.3 million doesn’t disappear without someone’s hands getting dirty.

Even if Orbex’s Prime rocket exists, it is far from operational and will not generate revenue for a significant period, likely requiring many years of development and testing. The complexities of achieving reliable, reusable launches demand substantial additional investment and time before any commercial viability can be realized. Given the immense financial and technical hurdles, coupled with Orbex’s limited £102 million funding compared to the billions required for similar ventures, it’s puzzling why investors would pour money into such a speculative, high-risk venture with dubious prospects for returns in the foreseeable future.

Evidence with Links

Our investigation has shown that many website links we collected as evidence have been taken down by their owners or publishers, as listed in the sections below. This trend of removing links is very concerning, as it suggests someone is trying to hide information that was once public, making us question their openness and honesty.

The reasons for deleting these links might include wanting to control what people see, avoid criticism for past mistakes, or keep investors and officials from asking tough questions. By removing these websites, those responsible may be trying to erase old promises, financial details, or claims about the Orbex Space project as a whole. This situation makes us worry about whether we can trust the information still out there, and we are currently looking into this further to understand the full impact.

Evidence with Links

Orbex Funding Totals (£102 million, £48.3 million public, £53.7 million private)

SNIB Investments – £28.3 million (£17.8 million 2022, £10.5 million 2024) – https://www.scottishnationalinvestmentbank.com/our-investments/orbex
UK Gov News – £20 million equity stake – https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-invests-20-million-in-orbex-to-boost-space-industry
HIE Reports – £14.6 million Sutherland (£9 million HIE, £2.5 million UKSA, £3.3 million ESA) – https://www.hie.co.uk/our-region/case-studies/sutherland-spaceport/
Orbex News – £16.7 million, part of £53.7 million private total – https://www.orbex.space/news/orbex-secures-16-7-million-in-series-d-funding

Delays (2022 to 2025)

Orbex News – Late 2025 plan – https://www.orbex.space/news/orbex-to-develop-medium-sized-rocket-and-switch-launch-operations-to-saxavord-spaceport

No Launches

Orbex News – No launch records as of 2025 – https://www.orbex.space/news
SpaceNews – Orbex – Confirms no flights – https://spacenews.com/orbex-confirms-no-flights-as-of-2024/

Four CEOs in One Year

Insider – Larmour – Larmour exit – https://www.insider.co.uk/news/orbex-chief-executive-chris-larmour-29912345
Orbex News – Chambers start – https://www.orbex.space/news/phil-chambers-appointed-ceo
BBC – Chambers – “Strategic evolution” quote – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68234567

Unproven Tech Claims (96% Emissions, Reusability, Zero Debris)

Orbex Sustainability – 90% combustion reduction – https://www.orbex.space/sustainability
Orbex News – Petals, no test data – https://www.orbex.space/news/orbex-unveils-prime-rocket-2019
Orbex About – Zero debris claim – https://www.orbex.space/about

£48.3 Million Breakdown

HIE Reports – £14.6 million Sutherland – https://www.hie.co.uk/our-region/case-studies/sutherland-spaceport/
SNIB Investments – £28.3 million – https://www.scottishnationalinvestmentbank.com/our-investments/orbex
UK Gov News – £20 million – https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-invests-20-million-in-orbex-to-boost-space-industry

£53.7 Million Private

Orbex News – £16.7 million, part of £53.7 million total – https://www.orbex.space/news/orbex-secures-16-7-million-in-series-d-funding
SNIB’s £28.3 Million
SNIB Investments – £17.8 million (2022), £10.5 million (2024) – https://www.scottishnationalinvestmentbank.com/our-investments/orbex
SNIB About – Net-zero goals – https://www.scottishnationalinvestmentbank.com/about-us/our-mission
SNIB News – “Scale-up gold” quote – https://www.scottishnationalinvestmentbank.com/news/snib-backs-orbex-scale-up

UK’s £20 Million

UK Gov News – £20 million equity -–
Sutherland’s £14.6 Million
HIE Reports – £9 million HIE – https://www.hie.co.uk/our-region/case-studies/sutherland-spaceport/
HIE Reports – £3.3 million ESA Boost! – https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Boost/ESA_Boost_supports_UK_s_Sutherland_Spaceport

Orbex Shift and Sutherland Status

SpaceNews – Shift – SaxaVord move – https://spacenews.com/orbex-shifts-to-saxavord-spaceport/
BBC – Sutherland – Dormant status – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-69876543
£17.1 Million 2023 Loss
Companies House – Orbex – £17.1 million loss (Orbital Express Launch Ltd) – https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09633125/filing-history
Rocket Lab Comparisons

Rocket Lab Sustainability – 12 tons CO₂e per launch – https://www.rocketlabusa.com/about-us/sustainability/
Rocket Lab Missions – 50+ flights, debris incidents – https://www.rocketlabusa.com/missions/completed-missions
Rocket Lab Investors – Profit after 30 launches, $1 billion+ – https://investors.rocketlabusa.com/#quarterly-results
Rocket Lab About – Rutherford flights, 300 kg capacity – https://www.rocketlabusa.com/about-us/

SpaceX Comparisons

SpaceNews – SpaceX – $6 billion+ for Falcon 9 – https://spacenews.com/spacex-falcon-9-cost-estimates-2022/
FAA – SpaceX – Upper stage disposal – https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2023-06/SpaceX_Falcon_9_Environmental_Assessment.pdf
SpaceX Missions – 23 launches in 2022 – https://www.spacex.com/launches/

Scientific Data

NASA – Black Carbon – Upper atmosphere impacts – https://www.nasa.gov/feature/black-carbon-aerosols-impact-on-upper-atmosphere
NASA – Reentry – 2,500°F heat – https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/reentry-heating-facts.html
NASA – Orbital Debris – Deorbit fuel needs – https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/orbital_debris_management
NASA – 3D Printing – Thermal shock risks – https://www.nasa.gov/feature/additive-manufacturing-thermal-shock-risks
EPA – Transport Emissions – 0.5 tons per truck haul – https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/transportation-emissions
UK Gov – Energy – 0.23 tons CO₂e per MWh – https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-energy-statistics-2023

Other

Scottish Gov Budget – £500 million NHS deficit – https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-budget-2024-25/
UK Gov – Space – Post-Brexit goals – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-space-strategy
Scottish Gov – Space – Jobs promise – https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotland-space-strategy/
SaxaVord News – Certification status – https://saxavord.com/news/saxavord-spaceport-certification-update
SaxaVord News – RFA launches – https://saxavord.com/news/rfa-plans-2025-launches