Author Topic: Phantom Space  (Read 20586 times)

Phantom Space
« on: 03/31/2021 06:10 pm »
This just came up in the Ursa Major Tech. thread because they plan to use Ursa Major engines, and I couldn't find a dedicated thread no matter what I searched. So yes, this is another smallsat launch vehicle. I've tried to pick out the relevant information.

They say they'll be using the Ursa Major Hadley engine. One on the upper stage, seven on the first stage. They'll apparently also be using, "...qualified NASA AVA avionics and software housed on traditional aluminum monocoque construction." An image also says they'll be using common bulkheads. 450 kg into a "low inclination orbit" and 370 kg to a polar orbit.

Oh, and here's a fun claim:
Quote
The Daytona is designed to be our workhorse launch system and is the only launcher designed from the ground-up to be mass produced.

There's also a whole paragraph on this page that is written twice.

Here's that page, with everything I've said about this vehicle: https://www.phantomspace.com/launch-services

I find the super late 90s awful night launch render really funny when compared with the much more modern looking and useful exploded view. Honestly, half the reason I bother to make this thread is cause I wanted to see if anyone could come up with an explanation for the golden interstage besides, "it's just a render", which obviously is probably the real answer.



« Last Edit: 10/22/2021 03:37 pm by gongora »
Wait, ∆V? This site will accept the ∆ symbol? How many times have I written out the word "delta" for no reason?

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #1 on: 03/31/2021 06:31 pm »
They are starting with flight ready engine and avionics which should reduced capital and time needed for development.


Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk


Offline Davidthefat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
  • Rockets are life.
  • Greater Los Angeles Area, California
  • Liked: 288
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #2 on: 03/31/2021 06:33 pm »
They are starting with flight ready engine and avionics which should reduced capital and time needed for development.


Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk



They have to consider how many customers Ursa has and how fast they can get the engines. The per engine cost of the Ursa engines can't compete with an in-house engine if they really are going for mass production.

Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #3 on: 03/31/2021 06:48 pm »
One does not simply take COTS avionics and say they are qualified for RCC-319 and 324 to operate on the government ranges.
 
I am curious to see how much faster it would be for them to not develop their own engines though. Also will be interesting if they try to build their GSE on site or ship it in containers like Astra and ABL.

They are starting with flight ready engine and avionics which should reduced capital and time needed for development.


Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

Offline trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2121
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #4 on: 03/31/2021 07:45 pm »
I find the super late 90s awful night launch render really funny...

Hey, at least they admitted it was a render, rather than lying about it. Although, since they uploaded the white-with-gold-interstage render before the render they lied about, that doesn't suggest a great trajectory.

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1351203481076555781

That said, the render they lied about shows a black first stage, so who knows what's going on with this vehicle.

Edit: Directly adding in Eric's screencap of their original tweet with the misleading render.

« Last Edit: 03/31/2021 07:47 pm by trimeta »

Offline Davidthefat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
  • Rockets are life.
  • Greater Los Angeles Area, California
  • Liked: 288
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #5 on: 03/31/2021 08:18 pm »
I find the super late 90s awful night launch render really funny...




Looking at it again, it doesn't even look like the booster will fit inside of the trailer. It looks too long to fit. What did Jim bring to the table engineering wise at Vector or even SpaceX in the beginning? AFAIK, most of Vector's HW was Garvey's and he's at Virgin now.

Offline trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2121
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #6 on: 03/31/2021 08:38 pm »
Looking at it again, it doesn't even look like the booster will fit inside of the trailer. It looks too long to fit.

They didn't photoshop the trailer to be bigger when replacing the Orion LAS solid motor with their much larger first stage, so yeah, it wouldn't fit.

Offline rubicondsrv

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 236
  • Liked: 225
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #7 on: 04/01/2021 01:28 am »
The choice of 5083 aluminum has some interesting implications for construction.  this is likely what they are meaning by the claim "only launcher designed from the ground-up to be mass produced" 

5083 is readily weldable with electric arc welding methods unlike 2024 and 7075.   it is quite a bit weaker than those alloys and even a bit lower yield than 6061-t6, but produces stronger welds than 6061 if no post welding heat treatment is used. 




Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1704
  • Liked: 2177
  • Likes Given: 658
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #8 on: 04/01/2021 04:45 am »
The choice of 5083 aluminum has some interesting implications for construction.  this is likely what they are meaning by the claim "only launcher designed from the ground-up to be mass produced" 

5083 is readily weldable with electric arc welding methods unlike 2024 and 7075.   it is quite a bit weaker than those alloys and even a bit lower yield than 6061-t6, but produces stronger welds than 6061 if no post welding heat treatment is used. 





I've used 5000 series alloys in propellant tanks with great success.  It's strong enough, ductile, corrosion-resistant and very weldable plus the welds work-harden as you acceptance test the tank.  I pretty much baselined it for every tank I have built in the past thirty-plus years.

Offline trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2121
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #9 on: 04/14/2021 03:48 pm »
Phantom Space claims they've raised $5 million in seed investment funding. That press release contains some "interesting" claims, such as a planned first launch in Q1 2023, and that relying on other companies (they use Ursa Major Technologies engines) will somehow enable them to ramp up to "hundreds" of launches per year better than companies doing everything in-house.

They also seem to have updated the renderings on their website: to address the questions people had in this thread previously, they've switched entirely to the black-with-silver-trim model first seen in their misleading photoshop job, entirely abandoning the white-with-gold-interstage version they used to have.

Edit: Oh, I hadn't noticed, their updated website includes mention of a partially-reusable slightly-larger Laguna rocket. I'd make comparisons with Rocket Lab's Neutron (and honestly, they probably intend the reader to make such comparisons), but the Laguna is still in the one-ton class (think Firefly/ABL/Relativity/Isar/RFA), so not really. Perhaps the most interesting thing about the Laguna is it's supposed to use Ripley engines on its first stage. This is the first I've heard of an actual planned rocket with the Ripley; other than this, everyone just wants to use the Hadley.
« Last Edit: 04/14/2021 04:02 pm by trimeta »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #10 on: 04/14/2021 04:45 pm »
Phantom Space claims they've raised $5 million in seed investment funding. That press release contains some "interesting" claims, such as a planned first launch in Q1 2023, and that relying on other companies (they use Ursa Major Technologies engines) will somehow enable them to ramp up to "hundreds" of launches per year better than companies doing everything in-house.

They also seem to have updated the renderings on their website: to address the questions people had in this thread previously, they've switched entirely to the black-with-silver-trim model first seen in their misleading photoshop job, entirely abandoning the white-with-gold-interstage version they used to have.

Edit: Oh, I hadn't noticed, their updated website includes mention of a partially-reusable slightly-larger Laguna rocket. I'd make comparisons with Rocket Lab's Neutron (and honestly, they probably intend the reader to make such comparisons), but the Laguna is still in the one-ton class (think Firefly/ABL/Relativity/Isar/RFA), so not really. Perhaps the most interesting thing about the Laguna is it's supposed to use Ripley engines on its first stage. This is the first I've heard of an actual planned rocket with the Ripley; other than this, everyone just wants to use the Hadley.
Laguna uses 3xRipley and has landing legs which implies propulsive landing instead of MAR. Ripley will need deep throttling or they've a couple of Hadley's for landing. Payload is 1200kg with mission price of $8M.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk


Offline Pueo

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 255
  • Likes Given: 202
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #11 on: 04/14/2021 05:47 pm »
I find the super late 90s awful night launch render really funny when compared with the much more modern looking and useful exploded view. Honestly, half the reason I bother to make this thread is cause I wanted to see if anyone could come up with an explanation for the golden interstage besides, "it's just a render", which obviously is probably the real answer.
If I was inclined to be charitable, I would say that the interstages are also made of aluminium and they intend to anodize the structure for corrosion resistance, with the tanks being covered with white insulation so we don't see the anodized aluminum surface.  You can certainly get that gold color with anodized aluminum, though if we ever see a mockup of the vehicle (my charitability has limits) it will probably look more bronze like the Atlas V tank.

Or it's just a render and they really liked the white with gold accents look of the Orion LAS in the photo they doctored.
Could I interest you in some clean burning sub-cooled propalox and propalox accessories?
Forget drinking ethanol meant for rocket fuel, propÆne is the eutectic fuel mixture you can huff!

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 712
  • Liked: 504
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #12 on: 06/19/2021 08:02 pm »
Phantom has acquired StratSpace:

https://techcrunch.com/2021/05/25/phantom-space-acquires-stratspace-in-pursuit-of-becoming-a-turnkey-space-service/

Wasn't StratSpace Jimmy Cantrell's own space strategy company?
« Last Edit: 06/19/2021 08:22 pm by ringsider »

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47313
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80124
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #13 on: 09/11/2021 08:19 pm »
https://twitter.com/phantomspaceinc/status/1436785399729319939

Quote
Mechanical qualification unit of a customer satellite being built at Phantom. We currently have 3 satellite contracts underway.

Offline Jrcraft

Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #14 on: 09/13/2021 04:37 pm »
https://twitter.com/phantomspaceinc/status/1436785399729319939

Quote
Mechanical qualification unit of a customer satellite being built at Phantom. We currently have 3 satellite contracts underway.

It's being supported by two reams of Boise x9 copy paper.
AE/ME
6 Suborbital spaceflight payloads. 12+ minutes of in-space time.

Offline matthewkantar

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2044
  • Liked: 2490
  • Likes Given: 2178
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #15 on: 09/13/2021 07:21 pm »
It's being supported by two reams of Boise x9 copy paper.

I’m guessing in the contract they are referred to as  encapsulated multilayer all-purpose isolation legs? EMAIL for those who prefer the acronym.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5965
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9111
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #16 on: 09/17/2021 05:52 pm »
It's being supported by two reams of Boise x9 copy paper.

I’m guessing in the contract they are referred to as  encapsulated multilayer all-purpose isolation legs? EMAIL for those who prefer the acronym.
Fibre-composite shim-stock, used in many industries for precision levelling (no joke, disassemble an older camera and you may well find small slivers of paper used to align the face of the lens mount into precise parallel with the film plane).

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2295
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1944
  • Likes Given: 1127
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #17 on: 09/29/2021 08:41 pm »
John Deere subsidiary Ingenu signs deal with Phantom Space to launch 72 satellite constellation supporting Industrial Internet of Things.

"The majority of the satellites are expected to launch on Phantom's Daytona launch vehicle in late 2023."

 https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/phantom-space-john-deere-ingenu-72-satellite-constellation
« Last Edit: 09/30/2021 03:52 am by gongora »

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9097
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #18 on: 09/30/2021 02:52 am »

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2797
  • Liked: 1062
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #19 on: 09/30/2021 03:16 am »
Maybe break out Ingenu as a constellation company in the Commercial Space section? Apparently the article above was edited to indicate that Ingenu isn't a subsidiary...

https://www.ingenu.com/


Gonna be real curious about this. Vehicle telematics is a big thing. So is John Deere famously locking down their tractor firmware.

For something similar, Kubota has been gathering vehicle telematics for construction vehicles via cellular modem for a long time now.
« Last Edit: 09/30/2021 03:21 am by Asteroza »

Offline Hug

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Australia
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #20 on: 10/21/2021 03:01 pm »
Update from Mars Society Convention and article
Have raised 4 mil in funding, stage testing towards end of next year for a flight in early 2023. "Now, Cantrell says his new firm has raised enough money to build four demonstration rockets that it will launch by 2023" https://qz.com/emails/space-business/2076849/
Target price of 4mil with payload capacity of 450kg should be competitive, just gotta see whether they can get there. See's Astra as main competitor. It would be surreal to see a company start the way they did get a rocket onto pad.

« Last Edit: 02/07/2022 10:47 am by Hug »

Offline brussell

  • Member
  • Posts: 93
  • la
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #21 on: 10/22/2021 04:23 pm »
Chris Thompson formerly, from SpaceX, Virgin and Astra, has joined Phantom Space.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/spacex-virgin--astras-chris-thompson-continues-his-space-race-journey-joining--phantom-space-corporation-as-chief-technology-officer-a-game-changer-for-the-future-of-the-space-industry-301405047.html


Quote
TUCSON, Ariz., Oct. 21, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- Phantom Space Corporation, the space transportation technology development and manufacturing company, today announced the hiring of Chris Thompson, one of the space industry's most sought after space engineers and executives. Chris will serve as Chief Technology Officer, where he is responsible for the company's direct development and oversight of launch vehicles and satellites including the Daytona rocket, which the company aims to start flying in 2023. Phantom currently has satellite programs underway and will be commencing stage level testing of its Daytona launch vehicle in early 2022.

Offline trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2121
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #22 on: 01/27/2022 02:20 am »
As mentioned over in this thread, NASA has created a new launch services program, Venture-Class Acquisition of Dedicated and Rideshare (VADR) missions, and awarded 12 companies the right to bid for future contracts that fall under this program. Notably, Phantom Space was one of those companies. For everyone else on that list, inclusion was to be expected, but what does it say about Phantom Space that NASA seems to be taking them more seriously than Aevum, SpinLaunch, Launcher, etc.?

Offline Craftyatom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
  • Software!
  • Arizona, USA
  • Liked: 720
  • Likes Given: 9169
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #23 on: 01/29/2022 03:14 pm »
For everyone else on that list, inclusion was to be expected, but what does it say about Phantom Space that NASA seems to be taking them more seriously than Aevum, SpinLaunch, Launcher, etc.?
Well, either they know something we don't, or we know something they don't.  Time will tell.
All aboard the HSF hype train!  Choo Choo!

Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #24 on: 01/29/2022 04:48 pm »
For everyone else on that list, inclusion was to be expected, but what does it say about Phantom Space that NASA seems to be taking them more seriously than Aevum, SpinLaunch, Launcher, etc.?
Well, either they know something we don't, or we know something they don't.  Time will tell.

I'd tend to assume that NASA knows more than we do.

And perhaps we haven't been giving Phantom a fair shake. Ursa Major is doing (or really, has already done) all the engine development for them. That right there is 90+% of the difficulty of developing a smallsat launcher.

I wonder if their website has gotten any better since the last time I looked.

...

Oh my god. https://www.phantomspace.com/daytona-rocket

Dramatically better. It's night and day (in some ways literally; the old one was a blinding white, and this one is dark). I even have a ton of number to regurgitate onto here, although most of these numbers are also present in the video in Hug's post above.

Daytona (that's their rocket's name)
HEIGHT: 18.7 m / 61.4 ft
DIAMETER: 1.25 m / 4.1 ft
MASS: 13,436 kg / 29,559 lb
PAYLOAD:
        LEO: 450 kg / 992 lb
       GTO: 160 kg / 353 lb
    MOON: 50 kg / 110 lb
 VOLUME: 2.8 m x 1.25 m

First Stage:
HEIGHT: 12.1 m / 39.7 ft
DIAMETER: 1.25 m / 4.1 ft
ENGINE: 7 Hadley engines
PROPELLANT: RP1/LOX
THRUST: 155 kN / 35000 lbf
TYPICAL BURN: 160s - 190s

Second Stage:
HEIGHT: 6.6 m / 21.7 ft
DIAMETER: 1.25 m / 4.1 ft
ENGINE: 1 vacuum optimized Hadley engine
PROPELLANT: RP1/LOX
THRUST: 26.7 kN / 6000 lbf
TYPICAL BURN: 480s to 520s

Engine:
PROPELLANT: LOX / RP-1
SL THRUST: 22.2 kN / 5000 lbf
VACUUM THRUST: 26.7 kN / 6000 lbf
SPECIFIC IMPULSE: 302s
« Last Edit: 01/29/2022 04:58 pm by JEF_300 »
Wait, ∆V? This site will accept the ∆ symbol? How many times have I written out the word "delta" for no reason?

Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #25 on: 01/29/2022 05:05 pm »
They also have plans for a follow-up semi-reusable vehicle called Laguna: https://www.phantomspace.com/laguna-rocket

Summary; 2 meter diameter, 3 Ursa Major Ripley's on the first stage, still just one vacuum Hadley on the upper stage, 1200 kg to LEO, and propulsive landing using the most ridiculous legs I've ever seen.
Wait, ∆V? This site will accept the ∆ symbol? How many times have I written out the word "delta" for no reason?

Offline briantipton

  • Member
  • Posts: 54
  • Donostia - San Sebastián, Spain
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #26 on: 01/29/2022 06:19 pm »
They also have plans for a follow-up semi-reusable vehicle called Laguna: https://www.phantomspace.com/laguna-rocket

Summary; 2 meter diameter, 3 Ursa Major Ripley's on the first stage, still just one vacuum Hadley on the upper stage, 1200 kg to LEO, and propulsive landing using the most ridiculous legs I've ever seen.

Interesting that Phantom Space thinks the Ripley thrust is 35k lbs but the Ursa Major lists it as 50k lbs. My first thought was just a typo on the Laguna page, but if 50k lbs was right, the Laguna would have an unusually high T/W. Daytona has an rather low T/W,  but it is expendable and Elon has taught us that higher reusable optimizes at higher T/W, so maybe 50k lbs is right and it's a typo on the Laguna page. The other possibility is that Ursa Major is resizing Ripley and hasn't updated their site yet, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that.

Either way, propulsive landing with a 3 engine first stage is going to be a neat trick. I am picturing a MAJOR hover slam & power slide...
« Last Edit: 01/30/2022 01:49 am by briantipton »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #27 on: 01/29/2022 07:34 pm »
They also have plans for a follow-up semi-reusable vehicle called Laguna: https://www.phantomspace.com/laguna-rocket

Summary; 2 meter diameter, 3 Ursa Major Ripley's on the first stage, still just one vacuum Hadley on the upper stage, 1200 kg to LEO, and propulsive landing using the most ridiculous legs I've ever seen.

Interesting that Phantom Space thinks the Ripley thrust is 35k lbs but the Ursa Major lists it as 50k lbs. My first thought was just a typo on the Laguna page, but if 50k lbs was right, the Laguna would have an unusually high T/W. Daytona has an rather low T/W,  but it is expendable and Elon has taught us that higher reusable optimizes at higherT/W, so maybe 50k lbs is right and it's a typo on the Laguna page. The other possibility is that Ursa Major is resizing Ripley and hasn't updated their site yet, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that.

Either way, propulsive landing with a 3 engine first stage is going to be a neat trick. I am picturing a MAJOR hover slam & power slide...
As comparsion Firefly Alpha is 1000kg expendable with 165klbs thrust.
The Laguna 1200kg is likely to be expendable and 3x50klbs engines.

What is recovery plan?. For this class RLV RTLS isn't realistic which means downrange landing on barge. Mid air recovery might be possible.



Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: 01/29/2022 07:39 pm by TrevorMonty »

Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #28 on: 01/29/2022 09:45 pm »
They also have plans for a follow-up semi-reusable vehicle called Laguna: https://www.phantomspace.com/laguna-rocket

Summary; 2 meter diameter, 3 Ursa Major Ripley's on the first stage, still just one vacuum Hadley on the upper stage, 1200 kg to LEO, and propulsive landing using the most ridiculous legs I've ever seen.

Interesting that Phantom Space thinks the Ripley thrust is 35k lbs but the Ursa Major lists it as 50k lbs. My first thought was just a typo on the Laguna page, but if 50k lbs was right, the Laguna would have an unusually high T/W. Daytona has an rather low T/W,  but it is expendable and Elon has taught us that higher reusable optimizes at higherT/W, so maybe 50k lbs is right and it's a typo on the Laguna page. The other possibility is that Ursa Major is resizing Ripley and hasn't updated their site yet, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that.

Either way, propulsive landing with a 3 engine first stage is going to be a neat trick. I am picturing a MAJOR hover slam & power slide...
As comparsion Firefly Alpha is 1000kg expendable with 165klbs thrust.
The Laguna 1200kg is likely to be expendable and 3x50klbs engines.

What is recovery plan?. For this class RLV RTLS isn't realistic which means downrange landing on barge. Mid air recovery might be possible.



Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk

"The first stage also features aerodynamic control flaps and dynamic hydraulic landing legs, allowing the first stage to land even on rough terrain."

The fact that they think rough terrain could even maybe be a concern suggests that this will not be landing on a barge.
Wait, ∆V? This site will accept the ∆ symbol? How many times have I written out the word "delta" for no reason?

Offline niwax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1421
  • Germany
    • SpaceX Booster List
  • Liked: 2033
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #29 on: 01/29/2022 10:08 pm »
They also have plans for a follow-up semi-reusable vehicle called Laguna: https://www.phantomspace.com/laguna-rocket

Summary; 2 meter diameter, 3 Ursa Major Ripley's on the first stage, still just one vacuum Hadley on the upper stage, 1200 kg to LEO, and propulsive landing using the most ridiculous legs I've ever seen.

Interesting that Phantom Space thinks the Ripley thrust is 35k lbs but the Ursa Major lists it as 50k lbs. My first thought was just a typo on the Laguna page, but if 50k lbs was right, the Laguna would have an unusually high T/W. Daytona has an rather low T/W,  but it is expendable and Elon has taught us that higher reusable optimizes at higherT/W, so maybe 50k lbs is right and it's a typo on the Laguna page. The other possibility is that Ursa Major is resizing Ripley and hasn't updated their site yet, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that.

Either way, propulsive landing with a 3 engine first stage is going to be a neat trick. I am picturing a MAJOR hover slam & power slide...
As comparsion Firefly Alpha is 1000kg expendable with 165klbs thrust.
The Laguna 1200kg is likely to be expendable and 3x50klbs engines.

What is recovery plan?. For this class RLV RTLS isn't realistic which means downrange landing on barge. Mid air recovery might be possible.



Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk

"The first stage also features aerodynamic control flaps and dynamic hydraulic landing legs, allowing the first stage to land even on rough terrain."

The fact that they think rough terrain could even maybe be a concern suggests that this will not be landing on a barge.

Makes it sound more like some random Cantrell marketing claim more like. There is no reason for an Earth-based first stage to ever land on rough terrain, but it sounds cool.

See also the inconsistent thrust numbers, the faked pictures and the fact that the first big action they took with their investment was to transfer most of it into Cantrells personal wealth by buying his consulting company.
Which booster has the most soot? SpaceX booster launch history! (discussion)

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #30 on: 01/30/2022 06:54 am »


They also have plans for a follow-up semi-reusable vehicle called Laguna: https://www.phantomspace.com/laguna-rocket

Summary; 2 meter diameter, 3 Ursa Major Ripley's on the first stage, still just one vacuum Hadley on the upper stage, 1200 kg to LEO, and propulsive landing using the most ridiculous legs I've ever seen.

Interesting that Phantom Space thinks the Ripley thrust is 35k lbs but the Ursa Major lists it as 50k lbs. My first thought was just a typo on the Laguna page, but if 50k lbs was right, the Laguna would have an unusually high T/W. Daytona has an rather low T/W,  but it is expendable and Elon has taught us that higher reusable optimizes at higherT/W, so maybe 50k lbs is right and it's a typo on the Laguna page. The other possibility is that Ursa Major is resizing Ripley and hasn't updated their site yet, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that.

Either way, propulsive landing with a 3 engine first stage is going to be a neat trick. I am picturing a MAJOR hover slam & power slide...
As comparsion Firefly Alpha is 1000kg expendable with 165klbs thrust.
The Laguna 1200kg is likely to be expendable and 3x50klbs engines.

What is recovery plan?. For this class RLV RTLS isn't realistic which means downrange landing on barge. Mid air recovery might be possible.



Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk

"The first stage also features aerodynamic control flaps and dynamic hydraulic landing legs, allowing the first stage to land even on rough terrain."

The fact that they think rough terrain could even maybe be a concern suggests that this will not be landing on a barge.

Makes it sound more like some random Cantrell marketing claim more like. There is no reason for an Earth-based first stage to ever land on rough terrain, but it sounds cool.

See also the inconsistent thrust numbers, the faked pictures and the fact that the first big action they took with their investment was to transfer most of it into Cantrells personal wealth by buying his consulting company.

When comes to the investors and their money "buyer beware" especially where Cantrell is concerned.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk


Offline gmbnz

  • Member
  • Posts: 53
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #31 on: 01/30/2022 10:05 am »
Daytona (that's their rocket's name)
HEIGHT: 18.7 m / 61.4 ft
DIAMETER: 1.25 m / 4.1 ft
MASS: 13,436 kg / 29,559 lb
PAYLOAD:
        LEO: 450 kg / 992 lb

<snip>

Engine:
PROPELLANT: LOX / RP-1
SL THRUST: 22.2 kN / 5000 lbf
VACUUM THRUST: 26.7 kN / 6000 lbf
SPECIFIC IMPULSE: 302s

Snipping a few of the other specs out, but I couldn't help but notice that it is incredibly similar to the Electron, which is also 18m tall, is 1.2m diameter, has a liftoff mass of 13t, and very similar engine thrusts (although higher engine isp).
And yet the Electron can only lift 300kg to LEO, compared to the Daytona's 450kg. That's 50% more for essentially the same vehicle design. And yes, definitions of LEO can differ between companies, but 50% is a such huge difference in performance I can't see it being that.
Either Phantom are missing something, or Rocket Lab are missing something... perhaps time will tell which it is!

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #32 on: 01/30/2022 02:17 pm »


They also have plans for a follow-up semi-reusable vehicle called Laguna: https://www.phantomspace.com/laguna-rocket

Summary; 2 meter diameter, 3 Ursa Major Ripley's on the first stage, still just one vacuum Hadley on the upper stage, 1200 kg to LEO, and propulsive landing using the most ridiculous legs I've ever seen.

Interesting that Phantom Space thinks the Ripley thrust is 35k lbs but the Ursa Major lists it as 50k lbs. My first thought was just a typo on the Laguna page, but if 50k lbs was right, the Laguna would have an unusually high T/W. Daytona has an rather low T/W,  but it is expendable and Elon has taught us that higher reusable optimizes at higherT/W, so maybe 50k lbs is right and it's a typo on the Laguna page. The other possibility is that Ursa Major is resizing Ripley and hasn't updated their site yet, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that.

Either way, propulsive landing with a 3 engine first stage is going to be a neat trick. I am picturing a MAJOR hover slam & power slide...
As comparsion Firefly Alpha is 1000kg expendable with 165klbs thrust.
The Laguna 1200kg is likely to be expendable and 3x50klbs engines.

What is recovery plan?. For this class RLV RTLS isn't realistic which means downrange landing on barge. Mid air recovery might be possible.



Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk

"The first stage also features aerodynamic control flaps and dynamic hydraulic landing legs, allowing the first stage to land even on rough terrain."

The fact that they think rough terrain could even maybe be a concern suggests that this will not be landing on a barge.

Makes it sound more like some random Cantrell marketing claim more like. There is no reason for an Earth-based first stage to ever land on rough terrain, but it sounds cool.

See also the inconsistent thrust numbers, the faked pictures and the fact that the first big action they took with their investment was to transfer most of it into Cantrells personal wealth by buying his consulting company.

When comes to the investors and their money "buyer beware" especially where Cantrell is concerned.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
Strategic Space Development was consultancy, don't see any advantage in purchase except to line Cantrell's pockets.
If they built satellites or their components it might make some sense.

Hope Ursa are receiving upfront payments for anything they build for Phantom.


Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: 01/30/2022 02:21 pm by TrevorMonty »

Offline ringsider

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 712
  • Liked: 504
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #33 on: 01/30/2022 07:10 pm »
« Last Edit: 01/30/2022 07:11 pm by ringsider »

Offline Bananas_on_Mars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
  • Liked: 448
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #34 on: 01/30/2022 08:42 pm »
Daytona (that's their rocket's name)
HEIGHT: 18.7 m / 61.4 ft
DIAMETER: 1.25 m / 4.1 ft
MASS: 13,436 kg / 29,559 lb
PAYLOAD:
        LEO: 450 kg / 992 lb

&lt;snip&gt;

Engine:
PROPELLANT: LOX / RP-1
SL THRUST: 22.2 kN / 5000 lbf
VACUUM THRUST: 26.7 kN / 6000 lbf
SPECIFIC IMPULSE: 302s

Snipping a few of the other specs out, but I couldn't help but notice that it is incredibly similar to the Electron, which is also 18m tall, is 1.2m diameter, has a liftoff mass of 13t, and very similar engine thrusts (although higher engine isp).
And yet the Electron can only lift 300kg to LEO, compared to the Daytona's 450kg. That's 50% more for essentially the same vehicle design. And yes, definitions of LEO can differ between companies, but 50% is a such huge difference in performance I can't see it being that.
Either Phantom are missing something, or Rocket Lab are missing something... perhaps time will tell which it is!
IIRC Jim Cantrell was part of the diligence team for at least one of Rocketlabs financing rounds. I think shortly before the creation of Vector.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5412
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1785
  • Likes Given: 1287
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #35 on: 02/10/2022 02:15 am »
Daytona (that's their rocket's name)
HEIGHT: 18.7 m / 61.4 ft
DIAMETER: 1.25 m / 4.1 ft
MASS: 13,436 kg / 29,559 lb
PAYLOAD:
        LEO: 450 kg / 992 lb

&lt;snip&gt;

Engine:
PROPELLANT: LOX / RP-1
SL THRUST: 22.2 kN / 5000 lbf
VACUUM THRUST: 26.7 kN / 6000 lbf
SPECIFIC IMPULSE: 302s

Snipping a few of the other specs out, but I couldn't help but notice that it is incredibly similar to the Electron, which is also 18m tall, is 1.2m diameter, has a liftoff mass of 13t, and very similar engine thrusts (although higher engine isp).
And yet the Electron can only lift 300kg to LEO, compared to the Daytona's 450kg. That's 50% more for essentially the same vehicle design. And yes, definitions of LEO can differ between companies, but 50% is a such huge difference in performance I can't see it being that.
Either Phantom are missing something, or Rocket Lab are missing something... perhaps time will tell which it is!
Maybe the difference between the mass of the electrical drive train and batteries in the Electron as compare to propulsion system on the Daytona gives the latter better thrust to weight ratio.

Offline ParabolicSnark

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • CA
  • Liked: 188
  • Likes Given: 124
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #36 on: 05/04/2022 04:07 pm »
Release on PR News Wire

Quote from: PR News Wire
Under the terms of the agreement, Ursa Major will supply hundreds of its Hadley engines in different configurations including ground test and upper-stage vacuum variants, as well as numerous Ripley engines for planned upgrades to the Daytona vehicle.

Quote from: PR News Wire
Phantom will use the 5,000-lbf Hadley and the 50,000-lbf Ripley in launch configurations optimized for cost, performance, time-to-market, and reliability. The first iteration of Daytona will have nine Hadley engines for its first stage and a single Hadley for its upper stage. An upgraded Daytona will debut in 2024 using a single Ripley engine on the first stage with a Hadley engine for the upper stage. The larger Laguna rocket, set for 2025, will be powered by a combination of Ripley and Hadley engines to increase the mass performance of the vehicle.

Debuting in 2023...even with procured engines, I'm skeptical that they can hit that. With what's been released by them, I'd be skeptical of anything prior to 2025.

A larger rocket with different engines and an entirely different tank size and presumably launch infrastructure is also laughable to occur within 2 years from first launch.

Offline trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2121
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #37 on: 08/25/2022 09:21 pm »

Offline niwax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1421
  • Germany
    • SpaceX Booster List
  • Liked: 2033
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #38 on: 08/25/2022 09:22 pm »
Cross-post from the "Countdown to new smallsat launchers" thread:

Good update on Phantom Aerospace.

http://parabolicarc.com/2022/08/25/having-it-all-come-together-but-not-in-house-phantom-spaces-approach-to-launch/

Isn't this just the last Cantrell scam, Mk II?

1. Show off already existing components made by someone else
2. Raise money
3. Run
Which booster has the most soot? SpaceX booster launch history! (discussion)

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #39 on: 08/25/2022 09:31 pm »
Cross-post from the "Countdown to new smallsat launchers" thread:

Good update on Phantom Aerospace.

http://parabolicarc.com/2022/08/25/having-it-all-come-together-but-not-in-house-phantom-spaces-approach-to-launch/

Isn't this just the last Cantrell scam, Mk II?

1. Show off already existing components made by someone else
2. Raise money
3. Run
Not going argue that point, his record to date isn't good. On plus side plenty jobs out there for staff if this one goes belly up.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9097
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #40 on: 09/21/2022 03:32 am »
Phantom Space: A new rocket startup says it can launch at half the cost of SpaceX

Quote from: interestingengineering.com
"Our first space launch will occur in less than half the time it took Space X to achieve that milestone."

New rocket startups will invariably have to face comparisons to SpaceX — the company's successful pioneering of reusable rocket technologies has positioned it as a reference point for all private space firms.

The trouble is that, given SpaceX's achievements, it's a high bar to live up to, and the comparisons will increasingly become unfavorable the longer a company goes without bringing something new and substantial to the table.

Jim Cantrell, CEO and co-founder of startup Phantom Space doesn't shy away from those comparisons. In fact, he claims his company aims to outdo Elon Musk's space firm when it comes to small, cost-effective payload launches.

Offline Celeste_El

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • MA
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #41 on: 10/02/2022 05:39 am »
Stumbled across an interview of Cantrell. Despite its run time not much about their rocket is actually discussed. From the few brief moments the topic was brought up Cantrell explained that the company is developing 3 "blocks" of the Daytona rocket. He explained that Block1 will be primarily made of aluminum to reduce initial development cost and fast track the rocket to orbit. Once they have the data and capital they will develop a Block2 version which is the same rocket with "a lot of composite pieces". Nothing on Block3 was mentioned as he went on an unrelated tangent completely changing the topic mid explanation.

Some additional tid bits are the company has secured SLC-5 at Vandy to launch from apparently slated for 2023 and they have clearance for up to 48 launches a year (doubt they use any of those).

Link to the interview if anyone is intersted:https://spacebusiness.podbean.com/e/77-jim-cantrell-phantom-space/?fbclid=IwAR2Q6qJG9tH2ewrEsDe01VtLuOxAEHgDXjl-Z6oY3UUss_V08uuD5Q6-LMU
I would advise against listening to it, Cantrell has mastered the art of saying nothing of substance despite talking for an hour.

Edit: Incase anyone was curious as to the state of SLC-5. Lets just say they don't have a lot to work with.
« Last Edit: 10/02/2022 05:42 am by Celeste_El »

Offline Mandella

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 524
  • Liked: 799
  • Likes Given: 2571
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #42 on: 10/02/2022 05:08 pm »
Stumbled across an interview of Cantrell. Despite its run time not much about their rocket is actually discussed. From the few brief moments the topic was brought up Cantrell explained that the company is developing 3 "blocks" of the Daytona rocket. He explained that Block1 will be primarily made of aluminum to reduce initial development cost and fast track the rocket to orbit. Once they have the data and capital they will develop a Block2 version which is the same rocket with "a lot of composite pieces". Nothing on Block3 was mentioned as he went on an unrelated tangent completely changing the topic mid explanation.

Some additional tid bits are the company has secured SLC-5 at Vandy to launch from apparently slated for 2023 and they have clearance for up to 48 launches a year (doubt they use any of those).

Link to the interview if anyone is intersted:https://spacebusiness.podbean.com/e/77-jim-cantrell-phantom-space/?fbclid=IwAR2Q6qJG9tH2ewrEsDe01VtLuOxAEHgDXjl-Z6oY3UUss_V08uuD5Q6-LMU
I would advise against listening to it, Cantrell has mastered the art of saying nothing of substance despite talking for an hour.

Edit: Incase anyone was curious as to the state of SLC-5. Lets just say they don't have a lot to work with.

Replying to my bold:

So this is going to be a repeat of previous efforts where Cantrell slaps together a hodgepodge of old tech to show investors "progress," and then folds before Block 2 ever appears?

I wonder how many times he can rinse and repeat this business model? That guy must throw some amazing fundraising parties.

Offline Celeste_El

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • MA
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #43 on: 10/03/2022 12:45 am »
Quote
Replying to my bold:

So this is going to be a repeat of previous efforts where Cantrell slaps together a hodgepodge of old tech to show investors "progress," and then folds before Block 2 ever appears?

I wonder how many times he can rinse and repeat this business model? That guy must throw some amazing fundraising parties.

Jim is a bit of deadbeat whos been kicked between 20 different advisory position at other peoples companies and his own failing start ups for the last 20 years. He somehow spins his long career of short stints at companies as "industry experience". That mixed in with the lie that he was a founding member of SpaceX you get a man who can lure in a few million any time he needs to start a new company.
 
At this point Phantom feels more like a sales company for Ursa because all they really have to show for the last two years of work is their off the shelf engines and maybe some aluminum tubes. I came across a tour of the company from April and all I will say is its some of the saddest conditions at any rocket company I've seen. Between half welded tanks sitting on the floor to a Hadley engines using a cheap office desk as work bench, its not impressive.

The tour: https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/a-tour-at-rocket-startup-phantom-space/#more-83945
« Last Edit: 10/03/2022 12:53 am by Celeste_El »

Offline PM3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1467
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1827
  • Likes Given: 1283
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #44 on: 10/03/2022 06:16 am »
I wonder how many times he can rinse and repeat this business model? That guy must throw some amazing fundraising parties.

This worked because money was ridicuously cheap, because interest rates were ridiculously low. Investors were drowning in cheap money and threw it at everyone who was good in selling some business model. (Btw, the sales king is Tim Ellis with Relativity.)

Now that interest rates are skyrocketing, the party is over. All those Cantrells, Skylusses etc. will soon be washed down the drain.
"Never, never be afraid of the truth." -- Jim Bridenstine

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2425
  • Likes Given: 13592
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #45 on: 10/03/2022 09:25 am »
Checked the website.

So it looks like they want to be another Rocket Lab, in the sense of offering satellite launch and build.

Trouble is that niche has already been filled so it's hard to see what PS will offer that's better against an established player. Especially one that seems to have bought up the #1 providers in their market sector of specific satellite subsystems. IE panels, power systems, reaction wheels etc.

That said it could be that this is the one where Cantrell put's into practice the line of Tom Cruise's character that "Every failure is a dress rehearsal for success"  :)

Or not.  :( 

Time will tell.
« Last Edit: 10/03/2022 09:27 am by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline ParabolicSnark

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • CA
  • Liked: 188
  • Likes Given: 124
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #46 on: 11/14/2022 03:40 pm »
Looks like Phantom has lit up the flight-like stage of Daytona with a 60 second Hadley hotfire. Video hosted on LinkedIn (doesn't look like they have their own YouTube channel yet).

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/chris-thompson-b3b5588_im-very-proud-of-the-phantom-team-and-our-ugcPost-6997747936709283840-WvKn?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

Quote from: Chris Thompson
I'm Very proud of the Phantom team and our partner Ursa Major Technologies in achieving this major milestone supporting the development of our Daytona Launch System. The 60 second test conducted at our interim test site located at Spaceport America, New Mexico was conducted smoothly. The test ran the planned full duration of 60 seconds with all vehicle and ground systems working nominally leading to a smooth shutdown. The pathfinder test stage used in this test is a combination of first and second stage systems allowing us to test those systems prior to production builds leading into the qualification of the Daytona Launch System.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47313
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80124
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #47 on: 11/14/2022 04:58 pm »
https://twitter.com/phantomspacec/status/1592207673474576384

Quote
We are proud to present to you our first successful hot fire test. This is an integral step in the development of our Daytona Launch System, and a proud accomplishment of our teams and suppliers.

Special thanks to the teams at  @ursamajortech & @Spaceport_NM for the support!

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47313
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80124
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #48 on: 11/25/2022 05:20 pm »
https://blogs.nasa.gov/smallsatellites/2022/11/25/nasa-awards-phantom-launch-services-task-order-for-csli-mission/

Quote
NASA Awards Phantom Launch Services Task Order for CSLI Mission

NASA has awarded Phantom Space Corp. four task orders to launch four CubeSat Launch Initiative missions as part of the agency’s Venture-class Acquisition of Dedicated and Rideshare (VADR) launch services contract. The CubeSats will launch no earlier than 2024 on Phantom’s Daytona rocket.

Building on NASA’s previous procurement efforts to foster development of new launch vehicles for NASA payloads, VADR provides Federal Aviation Administration-licensed commercial launch services for payloads that can tolerate higher risk. By using a lower level of mission assurance, and commercial best practices for launching rockets, these highly flexible contracts help broaden access to space through lower launch costs.

Phantom is one of 13 companies NASA selected for VADR contracts in 2022. NASA’s Launch Services Program, based at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, manages the VADR contracts.

Author Jason Costa
Posted on November 25, 2022
Categories CubeSat Launch Initiative, Kennedy Space Center, Launch Services Program, NASA, Venture-class Acquisition of Dedicated and RideshareTags commercial launch services, CSLI, CubeSats, Daytona rocket, FAA, Federal Aviation Administration, Phantom, Phantom Space Corp., VADR, Venture-class Acquisition of Dedicated and Rideshare

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47313
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80124
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #49 on: 03/08/2023 05:10 am »
Phantom Space have been allocated SLC 13 with Vaya Space:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58427.msg2464474#msg2464474

Offline trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2121
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #50 on: 03/08/2023 05:57 am »
This is in addition to Vandenberg SLC-5, which they secured a lease for back in 2021. For a Jim Cantrell company, the Space Force sure takes them seriously...

https://twitter.com/jamesncantrell/status/1404886113139916800

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38551
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 31738
  • Likes Given: 7727
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #51 on: 04/21/2023 04:55 am »
Phantom Space are going to launch from the Arnhem Space Centre, Northern Territory, Australia.

https://ela.space/phantom-space-and-ela-anounce-mou/

Phantom Space Corporation and ELA expand scope of future equatorial orbit launches from ASC
by Cohen Creeper | Apr 20, 2023

Equatorial Launch Australia (ELA) the developer, owner and operator of the Arnhem Space Centre (ASC) on the Gove Peninsula in Australia’s Northern Territory,  having previously signed an undisclosed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with American space transportation and rocket manufacturing company Phantom Space Corporation in Sept 2022, is now working towards a multi-launch contract as well as expanding the scope and detail of future cooperation to develop mission profile and launch requirements for multiple launches from the ASC.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #52 on: 11/09/2023 05:03 am »
So I guess these guys are still around.

Quote
We’re pleased to announce PhantomSpaceCorp and D_Orbit have signed a contract for multiple launches where Phantom will provide launch services. We recently conducted a Daytona Pathfinder stage long-duration hot fire test & are expecting the first flight in early 2025.

https://twitter.com/jamesncantrell/status/1722383652959457627?s=20

Offline tyrred

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 917
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 747
  • Likes Given: 20272
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #53 on: 11/09/2023 05:21 am »
So I guess these guys are still around.

Quote
We’re pleased to announce PhantomSpaceCorp and D_Orbit have signed a contract for multiple launches where Phantom will provide launch services. We recently conducted a Daytona Pathfinder stage long-duration hot fire test & are expecting the first flight in early 2025.

https://twitter.com/jamesncantrell/status/1722383652959457627?s=20

What is that thing, and what does it have to do with a long duration hot fire test?

It's like this guy isn't even trying and is still getting suckers investors to give him money.

Tax havens or something something dark side. Jeez.

Offline Hug

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Australia
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Phantom Space
« Reply #54 on: 11/09/2023 11:20 am »
What is that thing, and what does it have to do with a long duration hot fire test?

It's a D-Orbit tug.

Also some random car guy had a look at the factory, here's a pic.


Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0