2) Your highest investment pledge ($10k or more) is an insult to the investor. They will essentially pay for 1/7th of your company, while getting no % of your company in return.
3) Your presentation is OK, but you really need to put microphones closer to the speaker.
There's absolutely no way that this 70k is the value of the company. Their existing plant is probably worth 5-10x that even at bankruptcy auction prices.
My understanding (although I haven't looked in too much depth) is that they're an established company doing work in one area (fabrication for plasma/fusion research) who have come up with a novel use for some of their tech/skills, but can't really justify the cost/opportunity cost of this particular app.
So they're asking for essentially donations to develop the thing, in exchange for very low-cost returns plus a final project demo. It's really the patronage model applied to research.
Also, for 10k you do get naming rights to the tech, and some advertising opportunity during the final tech demo, which is probably valuable to some companies, especially given the audience targeting this thing is likely to attract.
Pitching for equity investment in the company requires a much more substantial business plan ("Make cool thing, produce internet videos & some research data" isn't really going to work), and it may just be that they don't see the value right now in doing the work necessary to attract those sorts of investors.
I imagine if this test is successful and there is any hint of actual commercial prospects from existing satellite/space manufacturers, they'd take a more conventional route to funding to get the thing built.
For "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if...?" studies, I think this is a good way to go about it, and $40k of people already agree.
How do you know this is the entire lot? The engineers seem to have invested a fair chunk of cash or resources into this already.
I think this may be more PR (a good thing!) than a full funding drive.
If not: "What is Kickstarter?" [1]