nuestark's founders, Johannes Tiefenthaler and Valentin Gutknecht. Since 2019, Tiefenthaler and ... [+] Gutknecht have built neustark into a credible force for CDR in Europe. They have plans to expand the business to the U.S.nuestarkCivilization lies between a rock and a hard place. Our high standard of living comes at the cost of processes that emit carbon dioxide, and those emissions are rapidly pushing our planet out of the environmental envelope that allows us to live so comfortably. We desperately need a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategy.The takeaway from my recent series on carbon capture and storage was that while the challenges of capturing emissions were great, the lack of transportation and storage infrastructure was the real problem.One innovative Swiss company, neustark, has devised a clever solution for storing carbon dioxide captured from waste treatment facilities within one of the most widely used substances on earthconcrete. neustark aims to create a local, circular economy that transforms demolished concrete into a carbon-negative building material.This may sound similar to Eco Material Technologies or other low-carbon cement producers which Ive covered in this column. Eco Material and its competitors seek to reduce the carbon footprint of producing cementthe binder that holds concrete together. neustark, in contrast, capitalizes on concretes ability to absorb CO2 throughout its useful life, especially when it is crushed into smaller pieces.neustark is a relatively new entrant in the CDR industryneustark was founded in 2019 by Johannes Tiefenthaler and Valentin Gutknecht, two innovators determined to find a practical and scalable solution to the challenges of carbon sequestration. Tiefenthaler, a scientist with a doctorate from the world-famous university ETH Zurich, is an expert in mineralizationstoring carbon dioxide in stonethe core technology behind neustarks innovation.MORE FOR YOUGutknecht, who previously worked in business development at Climeworksa leader in direct air capture technologybrought his experience in marketing and scaling carbon dioxide removal businesses. Tiefenthaler and Gutknecht collaborated to create a network of local firms that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, transform concrete into a tool for climate action, and help businesses reduce their carbon footprints.Like many successful start-ups, neustark has identified a very specific problem to solveCO2 emissions from waste management facilities, which capture methane generated in the decomposition of organic matter and sell it as renewable natural gas. Decomposition also generates carbon dioxide, which most facilities, lacking an economic solution for storing and transporting itsimply release into the atmosphere. neustark provides a pathway for that CO2 to be stored rather than released.The heart of neustarks process is an innovative reactor installed directly at concrete recycling plants. These facilities crush old concrete from demolished buildings to create aggregate, the pebbles and sand that cement binds together to form concrete. The neustark reactor infuses the crushed concrete with captured carbon dioxide from biofuel manufacturers and waste processing plants . The CO reacts in a mineralization process with calcium ions in the concrete to form calcium carbonate (CaCO)synthetic limestone. A single neustark reactor can draw down as much carbon dioxide in an hour as 50 pine trees can over an entire year.Mineralization permanently traps CO2, ensuring it won't return to the atmosphere. Even better, the resulting limestone aggregate is ready for use in construction, creating a closed-loop system for both concrete and carbon.The carbon dioxide from one waste management facility is sufficient to supply ten concrete recyclers, and neustark focuses on building local networks to minimize the carbon footprint of the attendant CO2 liquefaction and tanker truck operation. The company presently has four emission source partners, with ten more in various stages of development. It has 40 locations in development on the sequestration side, and recently announced that it was expanding from Continental Europe with the inking of a deal with a new storage partner in the UK.neustark's CDR technology bolts on easily to existing concrete recycling operations. Concrete ... [+] recyclers pay neustark to install the CDR reactor and then shares in revenues from the sales of carbon credits to the voluntary market. neustark estimates its recycler partners have a payback period of only a few years before they start generating 100% profit margins from credit sales.neustarkBecause neustark sources its carbon dioxide from organic waste facilities, its solution is carbon negativethe organic waste contains atmospheric carbon dioxide that will never return to the atmosphere. This approach reminds me of Brilliant Planet, the company profiled in this column in the summer of 2024 that uses algae to pull down atmospheric CO2 and then buries the algae underground. neustark chemically buries the atmospheric carbon dioxide in roads, sidewalks, and buildings rather than in a borehole, but the idea is the same.neustark generates revenues through equipment sales to the concrete recyclers to build the bolt-on mineralization reactors, and from the sale of high-quality carbon credits on the voluntary carbon markets. neustark handles the reporting and verification of these credits, sharing credit revenues with concrete recyclers. The company estimates its partners recoup the original equipment outlay over two to three years, after which the partners credit revenues fall directly to the bottom line.In repurposing waste concrete and creating an economically viable pathway for CDR, neustark flips the narrative of concretes environmental reputation. As the demand for carbon credits and eco-friendly building solutions grows, neustarks combination of science, engineering, and business innovation positions them as a key player in the fight against climate change. Intelligent investors take note.

The definitive ranking of the 100 best tech investors in the world, the Forbes Midas List is now seeking submissions for its 24th annual edition through January 28.Across boom-and-bust cycles for the venture capital industry, the Forbes Midas List has remained a constant, providing the definitive and data-driven ranking of the worlds top venture investors since its creation more than two decades ago.Now, in another time of transition for VC from partners playing musical chairs with firms to others joining the White House the Midas List returns for its 24th year. With booming artificial intelligence valuations and the promise of more IPOs following ServiceTitans December debut, Forbes expects to see new faces crack into this exclusive community.Submissions for the 2025 Midas List are now open through January 28.Since 2011, Forbes has produced the Midas List in partnership with a data partner, TrueBridge Capital Partners. Forbes and TrueBridge evaluate submissio ns for hundreds of investors across dozens of the industrys leading firms to rank investors based on their portfolios and results, not buzz or internet clout. Eligible investors must deploy capital out of formally closed funds with external limited partners; personal and corporate investments, while valuable to the ecosystem, are not considered for Midas rankings.The Midas List ranks investors across stages, with its model rewarding bigger and bolder bets. The list evaluates investors on a partner-by-partner basis, with up to two investors able to claim partial credit for a deal. Liquid exits that return real dollars back to limited partners are rewarded above unrealized gains. List-makers will typically have 10 or more eligible deals in their portfolio, or one or two career-defining outsized wins.Eligible portfolio companies must have either gone public or been acquired at a valuation of $200 million or more over the past five years; or, if still private, at least doubled their private valuation since the submitting investors initial investment to reach a valuation of $400 million or more.The 2024 edition of the Midas List featured 6 newcomers and 8 investors who reappeared on the rankings after previously dropping off, with Sequoias Alfred Lin in the top slot. The list tied a Midas record with 13 women investors.Investors who submitted for the Midas List Europe, our December ranking for venture capitalists based in Europe, Israel and the Middle East, are encouraged to resubmit as qualifying cutoffs for each list can vary. Eligible investors who submit for the main list will be automatically entered into candidacy for our additional Midas Seed List, which recognizes investors focused on the earliest stages. THE MIDAS LIST 2022Read MoreSubmissions are important for Forbes and TrueBridge to review the most up to date and accurate information but are not required for Midas consideration; in the rare instance that an investor does not wish to participate, the Midas list will still consider their achievements as fairly as possible through historical and third-party data. Candidates who have retired, or have changed employment status for conduct-related reasons, will be removed from eligibility.Portfolio performance and submissions are kept confidential and not published or shared. Submission to the list is, and has always been, entirely free.More historical information on the Midas List and frequently asked questions can be found on the Midas submission site. You can read last years package, including interviews with notable list makers and breakdowns of the list, here.

WTF?! In another illustration of how much bigger the video game market has become compared to the movie industry, the development costs of three Call of Duty games have been discovered. The least expensive was $450 million, while the costliest was an astounding $700 million and that doesn't include marketing costs. The development costs of Black Ops 3, Modern Warfare (2019), and Black Ops Cold War were part of a court filing seen by Game File.Starting with 2015's Black Ops 3, the filing states that Treyarch developed the game over three years. The FPS racked up over $450 million in development costs over its lifecycle and has sold 43 million copies.Next is 2019's Modern Warfare. Infinity Ward's development costs for this one reached over $640 million and it sold 41 million copies.The last of the three is 2020's Black Ops Cold War. Across the several years it took to make the game, Infinity Ward and Treyarch spent over $700 million. It was also the worst-selling of the trio, shifting 30 million copies.A quick check on the list of most expensive movies ever made shows that the costliest, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, cost $447 million at the time, less than all three games. The most expensive back-to-back production was the Avengers Infinity War and Endgame films. They cost a total of $1 billion, which is still less than the three CoD titles combined ($1.79 billion). And remember that marketing costs would push the games' budget even higher.Not all of them were worth the moneyGame companies tend to be quite secretive when it comes to their titles' development costs, partly because they don't want people to know how much was wasted on a flop. Skull and Bones, for example, is rumored to have cost more than $850 million. // Related StoriesRight now, 2020's Genshin Impact is above CoD Black Ops Cold War as officially the most expensive game ever at $900 million, but that includes $200 million added annually for ongoing costs the initial costs were just $100 million.Almost all of the Monopoly Go! budget went on marketingIt's expected that GTA VI will top the list when it arrives (hopefully) this year with costs exceeding $1 billion.Patrick Kelly, Activision's current head of creative on the Call of Duty franchise, was the one who revealed the costs in the lawsuit filed against the company. It related to the 2022 school shooting at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas.The suit, filed in May 2024, partially blamed the shooting that killed 19 students and two adults on Instagram and CoD, claiming they influenced the teenager who carried out the murders.

What just happened? Intel's new co-CEO Michelle Johnston Holthaus firmly dispelled rumors about the company's exit from the discrete graphics market during her keynote address at CES 2025. This announcement comes on the heels of controversial comments made by former CEO Pat Gelsinger, who was ousted from the tech giant last month. During her presentation, Holthaus emphatically stated, "We are very committed to the discrete graphics market and will continue to make strategic investments in this direction." This declaration directly contradicts Gelsinger's previous remarks in November, which suggested a diminishing need for discrete graphics investments. Specifically, he said during the company's earnings call that Intel's focus on graphics will increasingly become "large integrated graphics capabilities," which the market took to mean that it would build graphics into CPUs, not gaming graphics cards.The reassurance from its new leadership that Intel is still committed to the graphics market comes at a critical time for the company. Despite recent challenges, including the perceived financial failure of the Lunar Lake laptop processors, Intel's silver lining has been in the graphics card market. The company recently celebrated its first major success with the Intel Arc B580 graphics card, which sold out rapidly in most markets.However, industry analysts remain cautious about Intel's long-term strategy. Some speculate that Holthaus' upbeat tone might be masking a more gradual retreat from the discrete graphics space. The company's focus may be shifting towards AI-centric developments, mirroring recent trends set by competitors AMD and Nvidia.Nevertheless, Intel is pushing forward with its graphics card lineup. Holthaus announced the imminent launch of the B570 GPU, an even more budget-friendly option than the popular B580.It should be noted, though, that while the Arc B580 has garnered positive reviews, it's not without its challenges. Users have reported significant performance issues when pairing the card with CPUs older than five years, resulting in stuttering and low frame rates in many games. This problem isn't limited to older Intel processors; similar issues have been observed with AMD's Ryzen 5 2600X. // Related StoriesMeanwhile, the upcoming B570 model is garnering attention from tech enthusiasts. While both cards share the same architectural lineage, they cater to different segments of the market with distinct specifications and price points.The Arc B580 has 12GB of GDDR6 memory, positioning it as a capable contender for high-performance gaming at 1440p with ultra-quality settings. This memory configuration gives it an edge in handling memory-intensive tasks and games, especially at higher resolutions.In contrast, the soon-to-be-released B570 is set to feature 10GB of dedicated GPU memory. This 2GB reduction in VRAM might impact its performance in certain scenarios, particularly in applications or games that demand substantial memory resources. While Intel has yet to release specific performance metrics for the B570, industry experts anticipate it will be tailored more towards 1080p gaming performance.

One of Hollywoods biggest sliding doors moments involves Will Smith turning down the role of Neo in The Matrix.Judging by his recent Instagram post, Smith might get another shot in the battle of man versus machine.Smith posted a cryptic message on his Instagram. In 1997, the Wachowskis offered Will Smith the role of Neo in The Matrix, the message reads. Smith turned it down. He chose Wild Wild West, believing it was a better fit for him at the time. But the question remains: What would The Matrix have been like with Will Smith as Neo? Wake up, Will. The Matrix has youRecommended VideosIs this a casting announcement for The Matrix 5? Should we expect Smith to act in the next Matrix film? Nothing is official. This could all be a PR ruse to promote a product or another project. However, Smith is no stranger to nostalgic roles. Last year, he headlined Bad Boys: Ride or Die,the fourth film in the franchise. Smith also plans to star in I Am Legend 2Please enable Javascript to view this contentWill Smith has released a cryptic post teasing that he may be starring in a new MATRIX movie. pic.twitter.com/pyzTQ5k7Ah DiscussingFilm (@DiscussingFilm) January 6, 2025RelatedIn 2019, Smith posted a YouTube video to explain why he turned down a role in The Matrixto star inWild Wild West. After makingMen inBlack,a movie Smith initially passed on, the Wachowskis pitchedThe Matrixto the Fresh Prince himself. Smith didnt connect with the pitch and ultimately passed on the role, which he admittedly regrets. Smith mentioned that if he played Neo, Val Kilmer was being eyed to star as Morpheus. Smith turned down The Matrix, and Kilmer didnt play Morpheus, opening the door for Keanu Reeves and Laurence Fishburne to step in.In April 2024, Warner Bros. tapped Drew Goddard to write and direct a new Matrix movie, marking the first entry in the franchise without a Wachowski directing. However, Lana Wachowski will be an executive producer on The Matrix 5.Why I Turned Down The Matrix | STORYTIMEAfter the Matrix trilogy, the fourth film, The Matrix Resurrections, was released in 2021.Resurrections failed to churn a profit, grossing $159 million against a $190 million budget. The polarizing film was controversially released in theaters and on Max the same day, which negatively affected the box office total.Editors Recommendations

Today marks the 23rd anniversary of the launch of the iMac G4, which is still regarded as one of Apples best Macs to this day. When it arrived in 2002, it redefined what we should expect from computer hardware and software, yet it only lasted a couple of short years before being discontinued. What happened, and why was it so important?Released in 1998, the iMac G3 the direct predecessor of the iMac G4 reinvented Apple and helped get the company back on its feet when it was on the brink of bankruptcy. Yet despite its playful colors and design innovations, theres no doubt that it was limited by the technology of the time, with its huge chassis dictated by the bulky CRT monitor contained within.Recommended VideosThe iMac G4, in contrast, came much closer to the slimline vision that has animated much of Apples work for decades. By the time it launched in 2002, technology had advanced enough that svelte LCD displays were affordable enough for consumer computers. Out went the CRT screen and the heavy, boxy design it necessitated, and in came a new breed of thinness. But there was more. Inspired by the look and form of a sunflower, the iMac G4s display was mounted on a moveable arm, allowing you to position the screen however you wanted a genius innovation at the time. The base of the machine was tiny, too, housing the computers internal components in a cleverly disguised manner.RelatedThe inexorable march of technology granted Apple much more freedom to design the computer it wanted to, to follow Steve Jobs degree that each component should be true to itself. The iMac G4 was a notable example of Apple being able to craft a product that aligned perfectly with its philosophy instead of being limited by what was technologically possible.This approach reappeared in later products like the iPod and the iPhone. With these devices, Apple made it very clear that every element of the product should be there because it must be there anything that was not essential, in contrast, should be removed. The iMac G4 was one of the first times this vision really came to fruition, where Apple could act unconstrained by what the technology could and could not do.Maxime Bober / FlickrThe iMac G4 was influential in other ways. It dropped the bright, translucent plastics of the iMac G3 and ushered in a new era of white and silver a look that persisted for years among Apple products (from other Macs to the iPod) and influenced the companys rivals to no end.The iMac G4 was also the first Mac to launch with OS X and its Aqua user interface. Its ultra-modern blue and metallic gray design blew all competitors out of the water, making Windows (and past versions of Mac OS) look positively medieval.The iMac G3 was obviously a computer it may have looked different from every other PC on the market, but you couldnt mistake it for any other class of device. The iMac G4, though, was so compact that people had trouble working out where the computer part of it actually lived. Just as the iMac G3 had done before it, the iMac G4 redefined what a computer should look like and helped establish the reputation of Apples designers as some of the foremost technology tastemakers on the planet.Felix Winkelnkemper / WikimediaDespite its commercial and critical success, though, the iMac G4 lasted just a couple of years and was replaced by the much more conservatively designed iMac G5 in 2004. One reason was that displays were getting larger, which made balancing one on a moveable arm a much trickier prospect. The 20-inch iMac G4 weighed nearly twice as much as the 17-inch model, for instance, due to all of the extra weight needed to counterbalance its sized-up screen.Meanwhile, more powerful chips meant better cooling was required, which a small chassis like that of the iMac G4 could not provide. As with the trash can Mac Pro, Apple had designed itself into a corner and couldnt rectify the situation without another total redesign.If you look at it purely in terms of shelf life, the iMac G4 was a mere blip on the radar, a computing curiosity that left the stage as quickly as it arrived. Yet its outsized influence has lasted more than two decades its look continues to influence designers, with some devoted fans keeping it updated with new chips to this day. Theres even talk that Apple might revive the iMac G4s aesthetic with an all-new smart home display in the next year or two.Thats a legacy thats unlikely to fade any time soon. Considering the iMac G4 was only on sale for a little over two years, its a remarkable achievement.Editors Recommendations

Tencent was added to the Defense Departments list of Chinese military companies, contributing to a selloff in U.S.-listed shares of the WeChat owner.

Movers and shakers Annual power ranking of US launch companies finds a shake-up at the bottom No. 1 should come as no surprise, but we bet you won't guess no. 10. Eric Berger Jan 7, 2025 7:00 am | 0 A long-range tracking camera captured this stunning view of Starship hot staging, with the upper stage engines firing at the same time of booster separation. Credit: SpaceX A long-range tracking camera captured this stunning view of Starship hot staging, with the upper stage engines firing at the same time of booster separation. Credit: SpaceX Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreOnce again, we're back with our annual power ranking of US launch companies. 2024 was the third year Ars compiled a list of the most accomplished rocket companies in the United States with the goal of sparking debate, discussion, and appreciation for the challenge of operating a successful launch company.This is a difficult business, both technically and financially. We salute all the engineers, technicians, and business development people out there giving this industry a go.Please note that this is a subjective list, although hard metrics such as total launches, tonnage to orbit, success rate, and more were all important factors in our decisions. And our focus remains on what each company accomplished in 2024, not on what they might do in the future.1. SpaceX (no change from last year)There can be no doubt about the number one slot for 2024.SpaceX flew nearly as many Falcon rockets as times NASA flew the Space Shuttle over the course of three decades. In addition to flying 134 Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy missions in 2024, SpaceX also launched its massive experimental Starship rocket four times, even catching the first stage on one of those occasions.SpaceX has become much more than a launch company in the last five years, both in terms of human spaceflight with the Dragon spacecraft and broadband connectivity and its Starlink Internet constellation. This summer, Dragon was called upon to fly Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams back from the International Space Station after NASA was uncertain of the Starliner spacecraft's safety. With Starlink, SpaceX operates a profitable network composed of more satellites than the rest of the world operates combined.2. United Launch Alliance (+1)ULA returns to the second spot for 2024 after finally delivering its new Vulcan rocket to orbit in January. In addition to two Vulcan launches, the company also flew its final Delta IV Heavy rocket in April and flew two Atlas V missions. The launches were successful, although the second Vulcan launch in October required an investigation after a solid rocket motor nozzle broke apart during flight.Let's be real: Five launches in a calendar year is not sustainable from a business standpoint, and it's not where ULA had hoped to be. In February 2023, ULA chief executive Tory Bruno said during a roundtable with reporters, "We have to ramp up. Before the end of 2025 we expect to be really at a tempo, which is flying a couple of times a month, every two weeks." So far, the company is still only flying every two months, but it does look set to increase that cadence starting this year. A dozen launches in 2025 would be a good step up. The first Vulcan rocket fires off its launch pad in Florida in January 2024. Credit: United Launch Alliance The first Vulcan rocket fires off its launch pad in Florida in January 2024. Credit: United Launch Alliance 3. Rocket Lab (-1)A strong case could be made to have kept Rocket Lab at the No. 2 spot from a year ago. The company broke its previous launch record by 60 percent with a total of 16 Electron missions. Rocket Lab also did not have any launch failures. The company's work on Electron shows there remains a solid amount of demand for a reliable small launch vehicle and that Rocket Lab is continuing to improve its operations practices.That experience will be important as the company continues the development of the medium-lift Neutron rocket. There is plenty of demand in the market for a non-SpaceX medium-lift rocket, and if the company can land and reuse the first stage, that will be a bonus. The question is when Neutron will be ready. Rocket Lab continues to target 2025 for the rocket's debut, but if history is any guide, delivering on that launch date will require beating the odds. It will be a storyline to follow.4. Blue Origin (+2)This is the first time Blue Origin has reached the top five of this list. One may believe it is unwarranted, as the company has yet to fly an orbital payload yet. But it was a solid year for the company's New Shepard spacecraft, which flew three human missions and a cargo-only mission. A highlight was flying Ed Dwight into space in May. So after a failure in September 2022 put New Shepard offline for more than a year, the company's suborbital rocket is back.More importantly, though, Blue Origin finally began to execute its New Glenn program with some urgency under new chief executive Dave Limp. Although the massive rocket did not ultimately launch in 2024, the company has nonetheless delivered the vehicle to the launch pad. Moreover, it has components of the second and third vehicles in an advanced state of readiness in its large Florida factory. This year may be the year of Blue Originfinally! Dave Limp, Blue Origin's new CEO, and founder Jeff Bezos observe the New Glenn rocket on its launch pad at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida. Credit: Jeff Bezos via Instagram Dave Limp, Blue Origin's new CEO, and founder Jeff Bezos observe the New Glenn rocket on its launch pad at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida. Credit: Jeff Bezos via Instagram 5. Firefly (-1)Firefly has a lot of things going for it: an in-space propulsion unit, a lunar lander, and a survivor's mentality. Moreover, after 2024, it's clear that the company's Alpha rocket has won the 1-ton wars, outlasting Relativity Space and ABL Space to successfully launch and commercialize a rocket that can loft about 1 metric ton to low-Earth orbit. But so far, the company has struggled to reach an operational cadence. In 2024, the Alpha rocket launched just one time, successfully, putting eight CubeSats into low-Earth orbit for NASA in July.However, one important advantage Firefly has is its propulsion business. The company manufactures the Reaver engines for its Alpha rocket, and it's making substantial progress on the larger Miranda rocket engine to power a medium-lift rocket. This engine will power the Antares 300 rocket for Northrop Grumman and an unnamed medium-lift vehicle the two companies are developing together. If Firefly can continue to execute, the pieces are there for future success.6. Northrop Grumman (-1)In terms of pure launch statistics, 2024 was not a great year for Northrop. The company's sole launch was a suborbital Minotaur I rocket for the US Air Forcefrom Vandenberg Space Force Base in Juneas part of an ICBM readiness test. Northrop's Cygnus spacecraft did reach orbit twice, ferrying supplies to the International Space Station. Unfortunately, it did so both times on competitor SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket, as Northrop is still working to find a replacement for the Antares 230+ rocket.Northrop was forced to forgo the Antares 230+ rocket after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as the rocket's engines were built in Russia, and the first stage was manufactured in Ukraine. Hence, the company's partnership with Firefly to provide Miranda engines and construct a first stage for a newer version of Antares. If all goes well, that rocket will make its debut flight with a Cygnus spacecraft this summer. But since when does everything go right in rocket development?7. Stoke Space (+2)In 2023, Stoke Space demonstrated the viability of its novel upper stage with hop tests in Washington. In 2024, the company made progress on the development of the first stage of the Nova rocket, which is intended to be fully reusable. By the end of the year, Stoke hot-fired a 'Block 2' version of the first stage engine. Seven of the methalox engines will power a rocket that is intended to lift about 5 metric tons into low-Earth orbit.Every other entity on this list has launched a rocket before, so Stoke Space remains here on promise rather than what it has actually delivered. But as we head into 2025, the company appears to be making a lot of the right moves, including pushing for full reusability right out of the gate, setting up a launch site at Cape Canaveral and hiring well within the industry. Although Stoke is unlikely to launch its Nova rocket this year, I wouldn't entirely rule it out. Stoke Space fires up the second version of its main engine in December. Credit: Stoke Space Stoke Space fires up the second version of its main engine in December. Credit: Stoke Space 8. Relativity Space (-1)Relativity launched its first rocket in March 2023, and the Terran 1 vehicle had a nominal first stage performance. However, after this mission, the company shelved the smaller vehicle to put all of its resources into the much larger and more ambitious Terran R rocket. It has not been an easy transition, and the pivot has taken some of the shine off of the company. Its recent fundraising efforts appear to have been lackluster compared to its earlier rounds.In September, Ars published a lengthy feature about where the company is headed. It's fairly sobering, as a company that once aspired to 3D-print nearly the entirety of its rockets now is sourcing some key components from suppliers in Europe. Worryingly, a planned event this fall by chief executive Tim Ellis to release more information about Terran R's development has not gone off. It's fair to ask whether Relativity Space will be on this list at all next year.9. Astra (unranked)Guess who's back, back again? Astra's back, tell a friend. In October, Astrawhich last launched in June 2022announced that it had won a Department of Defense contract valued up to $44 million for launch services. To be clear, Astra is not all the way back yet. The company remains in the phase of building and testing rocket stages and engines and does not have a launch vehicle ready to go. Its new booster, Rocket 4, will launch no earlier than the fourth quarter of 2025.However, it is nice to see a resurrection of sorts for a company that I and many others left for dead. Ultimate success will depend on how chief executive Chris Kemp's fundraising goes and how the technological work progresses. But the near-term goal for Astra is to develop a mobile launch capability by which the rocket can be delivered to a concrete launch pad in two cargo containers and the ground support equipment and consumables in five additional containers by barge, train, or truck. Responsive launch is what the Department of Defense is interested in.10. USC Rocket Propulsion LabThe University of Southern California Rocket Propulsion Lab is not a company. Rather, it is a student group. However, this year, the students at the prestigious aerospace school did something that only a handful of companies did in 2024: launch a rocket into space. In November, the lab's Aftershock II mission reached an altitude of 470,000 feet (143 km), shattering the previous non-governmental and non-commercial record of 380,000 feet set by Civilian Space Exploration Team back in 2004.The Rocket Propulsion Lab remains the first and only student group ever to cross the Krmn line, which it accomplished in 2019 for the first time. Think about it this way: In the United States last year, only SpaceX, ULA, Rocket Lab, and Firefly launched something to a higher altitude. The USC group may not be a company, but in a few years, these students will make some US launch companies very happy with their talents.Dropped outTwo companies that made our power rankings in 2023 have dropped out. One of these, Virgin Galactic, flew to space twice with its suborbital space plane. However, after those flights, the company halted its operations with VSS Unity as it awaits the more reusable delta-class spaceships. Whether those vehicles will fly in 2025, 2026, or ever is yet to be seen. The other company on the list, ABL Space, is moving away from launch.Frankly, it's becoming difficult to identify 10 credible US launch companies at this point. There remain some US companies in various states of launch vehicle development, including Phantom Space, Evolution Space, Exos Aerospace, Vaya Space, Deep Space Transport LLC (which sounds like it is on life support, if it exists at all), and other companies. But absent a rocket at the pad, it's difficult to have too much confidence in any of these players.Finally, I was also hoping for memorable antics from Pythom Space this year, but alas, the last update on its website is a post to wish everyone a Happy New Year from early January 2024.Eric BergerSenior Space EditorEric BergerSenior Space Editor Eric Berger is the senior space editor at Ars Technica, covering everything from astronomy to private space to NASA policy, and author of two books: Liftoff, about the rise of SpaceX; and Reentry, on the development of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon. A certified meteorologist, Eric lives in Houston. 0 Comments

After several years of economic uncertainty and layoffs, salaries paid to US tech talent are once again some of the worlds most competitive. And in at least one significant US jobs category -- sales and marketing -- there is now pay equity between women and men.Those are among the findings of an analysis our company conducted of more than 150,000 anonymized employment contracts in more than 100 countries for software engineers, product designers, and sales and marketing professionals. That includes three countries -- the US, Canada and the UK -- which tend to be the most competitive with one another for top talent.This good news about the state of American tech talent, innovation and competitiveness comes at a time when that standing has been a source of public concern.Much of the higher compensation for tech workers is presumably driven by the widely acknowledged skills gap, particularly in AI. For US software engineers, for example, median compensation had dropped below $100,000 during the big waves of tech layoffs in 2022 and 2023.But by the end of the second quarter of 2024, the most recent period in our analysis, it had rebounded to $122,000 -- perhaps driven in part by the soaring demand for AI skills. The US compensation level was second only to Canada, whose much smaller population has fewer tech workers for employers to compete for.Related:Overall, our survey indicates that when it comes to one of the factors that really matter to global talent -- compensation -- US tech workers are in high demand. And whether its companies based in the US or global employers offering remote contracts to Americans, the global business world is willing to pay what it costs to attract and retain that talent.Heres a deeper dive into the data:Software Skills Are in High DemandFor the people with the skills for in-demand tasks like writing code or developing AI models and algorithms, the US jobs market has some idiosyncrasies. One is the much higher potential portion of compensation that comes from stock or equity grants. In positions where equity is part of the package, the median US compensation for a software-and-data engineer is $151,000 a year -- the highest anywhere in the world -- assuming the typically four-year vesting program pays out. That translates to an additional 35% a year in compensation, beyond salary. Of the countries we looked at, only Germany comes close, with a combined $135,000 in annual pay and equity.Unfortunately, another characteristic of the US labor market for software engineers and data scientists is a stark gender gap. Women represent only 10.3% of workers in this category, roughly in line with the UK and Germany. And that disparity translates into a compensation gap. The median US compensation for men in software and data is $155,000, compared to $120,000 for women. Similar pay gaps are found in all other countries we surveyed. Related:Tech Product Development and DesignThis line of work also has a gender gap, although a slightly narrower one. For jobs that might involve software development and design, or overseeing such activities, women hold 41% of the positions.And women in those roles have median compensation of $128,000. While a bit closer to the male median of $150,000, its still a sizable gap. The same pattern is evident in other countries, although typically at lower pay scales.Techs Silver Lining for Gender ParityTech sales and marketing is one area where, in the US at least, there is full pay parity between men and women -- median compensation of $100,000.Thats second to the top figure in the UK. But there, the gender disparity is still sizable: $105,000 for men, compared to $92,000 for women. Canada shows a comparable gender gap, at $84,000 for men but only $77,000 for women.Related:Why women, who hold 42% of jobs in tech sales and marketing in the US, have been able to achieve pay parity deserves further study. One factor might be that sales performance is easy to quantify -- the more a person sells, the better one is rewarded.But why this parity doesnt translate to other countries -- maybe theres a cultural component? -- would be worth researching. The Takeaway on Tech Take-Home PayOur findings lead to several steps that employers can take to remain competitive and retain the best talent:Recognize the need for competitive compensation.If inflation is a factor, ensure your pay scales include bi-annual adjustments or regular cost-of-living increases.Offer equity, which especially in tech, is widely sought by employees and can ensure longer-term loyalty.Given the all-too-common gender gap in compensation, position your organization to attract female talent by closing that gap. For the global business world, the survey indicates that the US has bounced back as a top competitive market for tech talent. And for companies everywhere, the value proposition is clear: The relatively high cost of skilled US tech workers is well worth the price.

Two bodies were discovered in the landing gear of a JetBlue plane on Monday, the airline said.The bodies were found during a routine inspection after the plane landed in Florida.The plane had flown from New York's JFK Airport to Fort Lauderdale.Two people were found dead on Monday night in a JetBlue plane during a routine inspection of the aircraft at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. In a statement provided to media outlets, JetBlue said the bodies were discovered in the aircraft's landing gear.The airline said the aircraft had recently operated as JetBlue Flight 1801, traveling from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport to Fort Lauderdale.Flight-tracking data from FlightAware shows that the Airbus A320 landed in Florida on Monday at 11:10 p.m."The circumstances surrounding how they accessed the aircraft remain under investigation," JetBlue said in the statement.It continued: "This is a heartbreaking situation, and we are committed to working closely with authorities to support their efforts to understand how this occurred."It is not clear if authorities know who the individuals are.CBS News said that Broward County Sheriff's Deputies and a medical examiner attended the aircraft overnight.The sheriff's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.This is a developing story, check back for updates.