Are you actually a rocket geek - or did you just roll that name randomly? Because an actual rocket geek would know how long Alan Bond has been pushing this concept.
I am well aware of how long the concept has been pushed - it makes me realise how long I've been in this game. I know Alan Bond well (in fact I work for him), and I know his co-designer on the previous concept HOTOL well too (Dr Bob Parkinson). I also know, that when they have to battle against entrenched, sclerotic viewpoints of people such as your good self, it can take a long time for development to come to fruition.
What about the tested stuff? That's like having a tested transistor, a tested capacitor, a working prototype of a voltmeter, a well polished stone knife, a properly prepared bearskin - and announcing that you are ready to use them to build a supercomputer. They're virtually meaningless.
And by that, you demonstrate how little you understand of the subject in question, sorry. Your argument is itself meaningless. The various technologies are developed to considerably more than merely component level, and I would hope you are not stupid enough to think otherwise, but are trying to illicit a response. The key is take the various technologies to higher Technology Readiness Levels. Go look up what that means if you are not sure.
Anyone who works around engineering, or who has a working knowledge of engineering, knows the real test is an integrated system. Something Reaction Engines doesn't even have the data to rough out a design before, yet alone build.
Again, that just belies your ignorance of both the process, and in this particular case, the hardware developed. You may benefit from reading the details on their website, as opposed to simply using it as an opportunity to indulge in your love of bashing - that way, you might (a) learn something, and (b) understand why the project is broken down into the distinct areas it is. Yes, I admit I am a physicist who works in engineering, as opposed to an engineer who works in engineering, if that is something you wish to use against me too.
My comments? They aren't negative - they're factual. They only seem negative and in need of fact checking because most self proclaimed rocket fanboys are like you, completely and utterly ignorant.
Actually, your comments are most certainly not factual, because if you had read the information first, and had understood anything of what is written on the project, you would understand how lacking in clues you are.
If by rocket fanboys and ignorance, you mean degrees in physics, many years of experience of working on developing rocket propulsion, genuine contributions to numerous peer reviewed rocket propulsion papers, and well used copies of rocket propulsion books such as Sutton, Huzel and Huang, and Humble and Larson which are battered because I've had cause to use them out at test sites doing real rocket propulsion testing, then I suppose I am guilty.
So come on Mr Lyons, what is your technical background? I'm sure since you are so able to cast aspersions on so many rocket concepts, that you must have an exemplary background yourself.