Phantom Space

[su27k]

Phantom Space: A new rocket startup says it can launch at half the cost of SpaceX

"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.

[Celeste_El]

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.

[Mandella]

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.

[Celeste_El]

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

[PM3]

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.

[john smith 19]

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.

[ParabolicSnark]

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

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.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/phantomspacec/status/1592207673474576384

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!

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://blogs.nasa.gov/smallsatellites/2022/11/25/nasa-awards-phantom-launch-services-task-order-for-csli-mission/

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

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Phantom Space have been allocated SLC 13 with Vaya Space:

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

[trimeta]

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

[Steven Pietrobon]

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.

[spacenuance]

So I guess these guys are still around.

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

[tyrred]

So I guess these guys are still around.

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.

[Hug]

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.

[matt19215]

They closed a bridge round

https://spacenews.com/phantom-closes-bridge-funding-round/

[catdlr]

There has been a meeting of the California Coastal Commission to discuss the increased launch cadence at VSFB.  In it is this comment:

Phantom Space Corporation

At its December 15, 2023 meeting, the Commission concurred with a CD from
DAF for Phantom Space Corporation (Phantom) to construct a new commercial space
CD-0003-24 (DAF)
53
launch facility at the former site of SLC-5 and to carry out up to 48 rocket launches and
48 static fire engine tests per year. Additionally, the Commission is aware of several
other pending launch programs (see Table 1, below), a proposed increase in SpaceX
launches to 100 per year (anticipated to be submitted as a consistency determination
this year), and the potential construction of new launch facilities at VSFB to support
future launch activities. All of these have the potential to increase the total launch
activity on the base. The cumulative effects of engine noise from space launch
activities are influenced by the geographic distance between launch sites, the timing of
launches, the size and engine noise intensity created by different launch vehicles, and
the actual number of launches that take place (as noted above, the number of actual
launches has traditionally been ten percent or less of the authorized number).

The entire report is attached.  There are 11 references to the Phantom Space Corporation

I attached a map indicating the old launch location in question, it's the Red tag on the map

[PM3]

They closed a bridge round

https://spacenews.com/phantom-closes-bridge-funding-round/

... and pushed the first launch to 2025 and downscaled the first rocket from 450 kg to 180 kg payload, while announcing two more.

Daytona I: 180 kg to LEO - diameter 1.5 m, length 18 m, engines 9x Hadley / 1x Hadley
Daytona II: 440 kg to LEO - diameter 1.5 m, length 18.6 m, engines 1x Ripley / 1x Hadley
Daytona III: 950 kg to LEO - diameter 2 m, length 21.2 m, engines 2x Ripley / 1x Ripley

All three are two-stage expendable rockets.

https://phantomspace.com/daytona-rocket/

[trimeta]

They closed a bridge round

https://spacenews.com/phantom-closes-bridge-funding-round/

... and pushed the first launch to 2025 and downscaled the first rocket from 450 kg to 180 kg payload, while announcing two more.

Daytona I: 180 kg to LEO - diameter 1.5 m, length 18 m, engines 9x Hadley / 1x Hadley
Daytona II: 440 kg to LEO - diameter 1.5 m, length 18.6 m, engines 1x Ripley / 1x Hadley
Daytona III: 950 kg to LEO - diameter 2 m, length 21.2 m, engines 2x Ripley / 1x Ripley

All three are two-stage expendable rockets.

https://phantomspace.com/daytona-rocket/

That's quite a significant downgrade in payload for Daytona I -- just 53 kg to 500 km circular SSO. All without changing the first or second stage engines (the previously unnumbered "Daytona" rocket also used 9/1 Hadleys). So either they had some significant setbacks with dry mass, or they were always showing the specs for two different rockets mixed together...