By Sean Key
Note on Perspective
Just a heads-up, I am not an aerospace engineer or technical expert. What follows is based on my own review of publicly available images and information, and reflects a general, non-expert perspective. Any technical observations should be taken as casual impressions, not expert analysis.
The Dispute in a Nutshell
Two emerging players in space launch technology, Auriga Space and Orbital Bridge, are in a quiet but growing public disagreement. Orbital Bridge claims that Auriga Space not only adopted the general idea of electromagnetic launch systems but also copied specific visual elements. One of the most striking examples is a “T-rail” track design, which Orbital Bridge says was deliberately included in their early graphics as a decoy to detect imitators.
They also argue that an early animation from Auriga featured a steeply curving launch rail meant to send a hypersonic sled skyward. According to Orbital Bridge, this maneuver would expose any vehicle to over 1,000 Gs of lateral acceleration, which would destroy both the payload and the infrastructure supporting it.
Auriga Space has not issued a formal public response to these claims. Shortly after the criticism surfaced, they removed the animation and replaced it with footage of a coilgun-style electromagnetic launch test. Orbital Bridge interprets this as a pivot to a different model, one they believe is not suited for large-scale orbital launches. As of this writing, Auriga has not posted any updates in the past two weeks.
The Patent Side
A granted U.S. utility patent, US 11,987,391, describes an electromagnetic launch system that closely resembles the concepts Orbital Bridge promotes. The patent is registered to an individual inventor, not to Orbital Bridge as a company, and includes details such as a horizontal maglev rail, a reusable spaceplane mounted on an accelerator sled, and a supercritical steam rocket engine that uses captured thermal energy for propulsion. The design also features a thermal transfer system that moves heat from the vehicle’s leading edges to a central boiler chamber.
While Orbital Bridge does not name this patent on its website, the company’s public descriptions and goals align closely with the technologies covered in it. This suggests at least a conceptual connection between the inventor’s work and the company’s stated mission.
What the Websites Tell Us
Orbital Bridge’s website has been online for several years, but it has not been updated since 2022. This suggests a low public profile, even though the company says it has been continuing hardware testing and internal development.
Auriga Space had a more visible online presence until recently, sharing animations, test footage, and press coverage. However, the company has not released any new content in the past two weeks, which is notable considering the recent scrutiny.
My Take on the Visuals
After reviewing the public visuals from both companies, I did not find strong similarities. Both use rail-based launch systems, but their overall style, presentation, and animation design appear different.
The “T-rail” element that Orbital Bridge identifies as a red herring does exist in Auriga’s visuals. However, in creative and promotional work, artists and marketing teams often select visual elements to inspire interest rather than to precisely match technical reality. This is not unusual. For example, in the LiftPort space elevator book, publishing experts advised the principal to trust their design instincts for the cover, prioritizing what would attract readers over strict technical accuracy. In the same way, Auriga’s acceptance of the T-rail could simply be a design motif chosen for aesthetic or conceptual appeal, rather than evidence of intentional copying.
Even if the T-rail was not a purely artistic choice, there is also the possibility of developing a similar concept independently. Engineering solutions in the same field often converge on comparable design elements because they face the same physical constraints and performance goals.
From a general viewer’s standpoint, the visual materials do not strongly support the accusation of copying. That said, deeper technical similarities could exist that only experts would recognize.
Engineering Versus Theater
One of the most interesting points raised by Orbital Bridge is the contrast between real engineering and what they call “Innovation Theater.” This refers to the way some startups focus more on slick visuals and big promises than on technical feasibility. It is a cautionary perspective that suggests the startup world sometimes rewards excitement over credibility.
Whether or not Auriga copied anything, the broader concern is valid. In fields like aerospace, where physical laws cannot be ignored, compelling narratives are not a substitute for working systems.
Final Thoughts
This situation involving Auriga Space and Orbital Bridge reflects the delicate balance between innovation, trust, and technical integrity, but it may also be shaped by the realities of startup competition. It is worth considering that Orbital Bridge could be motivated not only by concerns over intellectual property and engineering accuracy, but also by the frustration of watching a competitor attract funding and attention that they were unable to secure.
The presence of similar design elements, such as the T-rail, does not prove wrongdoing, and the fact that Auriga Space might be earlier in its development cycle does not automatically mean its concept is unfeasible. Auriga may have an alternative approach that makes its design workable, even if Orbital Bridge believes otherwise.
The most concerning point for Auriga Space is not the design similarity or the pace of development, but the decision to remain silent in the face of public accusations. That silence leaves room for speculation and weakens confidence among observers. On the other hand, it is also possible that Orbital Bridge’s statements are the product of a company that feels left behind as the industry moves forward.
As someone watching from the outside, I cannot say who is right. What is clear is that the optics of competition, funding, and public narrative are playing as big a role here as the technical questions. In a field where credibility is everything, perception can be as important as performance.
Sean Key is the CEO of Better Futures, Inc., and a contributor to this blog