"We're Building the Railroads of the Space Gold Rush": Space Phoenix Systems CEO Andrew Parlock’s Mission to Become the Invisible Backbone of the Low Earth Orbit Revolution

In the autumn of 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, triggering the first Space Race. Sixty-eight years later, in a Baltimore office, Andrew Parlock sits with the prototype of his company's "Hermes" spacecraft visible behind him. Unlike the government-funded space programs of the 20th century, Space Phoenix Systems represents something new: the vanguard of what economists call the Fourth Wave of human technological development.

"We're building the railroads of the coming space gold rush," Parlock explains, gesturing toward schematics on the conference table. During California's 1849 gold rush, those who supplied the infrastructure accumulated more wealth than most prospectors. Space Phoenix aims to be the equivalent for the orbital economy—not mining resources, but providing the essential infrastructure and tools that makes commerce possible.

What makes this modern gold rush different is its invisible nature. While millions watched the moon landing, few will witness the transformation Parlock envisions: an orbital industrial revolution worth $1.6 trillion by decade's end. This revolution may help solve critical Earth problems—from climate change to resource scarcity. But first, someone needs to build the roads.

What ignited your passion for aerospace, and how did that journey evolve into the creation of Space Phoenix Systems?

"I was that kid who took everything apart—sometimes putting it back together, but usually not," Andrew says with a chuckle. His space fascination began early—watching every shuttle launch, even pretending to be sick to stay home from school to witness them. "In fourth grade, my teacher had us write essays about our future careers. I wrote that I wanted to be a scientific engineer designing satellites. Remarkably, about eight years ago, she sent us all those essays she'd kept. It was incredible to see."

Science fiction played a pivotal role: "Obviously Star Wars in '77 was huge. I've always been a dedicated Trekkie, even as a young kid." This passion was so transparent that "my parents eventually figured out, probably around the 30th shuttle launch, that I was mysteriously 'sick' on every launch day because I never wanted to miss one."

Despite his aerospace engineering degree, Andrew's official industry entrance came later. "I didn't join Northrop Grumman Space Systems until 2018-2019. I'd managed several space missions before that, but I didn't have the formal title of space engineer until much later in my career."

The combination of his aerospace background, MBA, and industry experience eventually crystallized into Space Phoenix. "I knew I wanted to create something of my own, so I began exploring the periphery and identifying market needs. The blend of my MBA, aerospace engineering, considerable experience, and yes—plenty of gray hair and scar tissue—proved invaluable. That's how the concept for Space Phoenix emerged."

Andrew also emphasizes his roots: "I come from a deeply blue-collar family—tradespeople and craftspeople everywhere. I still maintain those skills myself, especially with carpentry and home improvement projects."

Space Phoenix has been described as providing the essential infrastructure for the new space economy—the "shovels and miners" of a modern gold rush. What critical gaps in the space ecosystem are you specifically targeting?

"We call that our 49er strategy," Andrew explains with evident pride. "Looking at the gold rush of 1849, history shows the real winners weren't the gold miners—they were the people supplying the wagons, shovels, wheelbarrows, mules, and probably quite a bit of whiskey too. The railroad companies made substantially more money than anyone actually mining for gold."

Space Phoenix positions itself as that essential yet often overlooked infrastructure. "We're building the logistical backbone. The shovels and wagons that nobody talks about. Everyone focuses on the gold, not what makes finding it possible."

Andrew brings this concept home with a familiar comparison: "Think about the last Amazon package delivered to your door. You didn't exclaim, 'Wow, did you see that delivery van? That van was amazing!' No, you simply said, 'My package arrived.' You don't care about the delivery method. You click a button online, and two days later, what you ordered appears at your doorstep. You value the service and result, not the logistics behind it."

This exemplifies Space Phoenix's vision: becoming the invisible yet indispensable logistics infrastructure powering the space economy. "I'll know we've truly succeeded when people stop mentioning Space Phoenix altogether. Instead, they'll say, 'We placed this technology in space, retrieved it, and accomplished something groundbreaking. We've developed a new semiconductor or advanced material'—with no mention that Space Phoenix handled the transportation."

The company's focus remains on enabling the next industrial revolution: "The Low Earth Orbit economy represents the next industrial revolution. What's our role? We provide the roads. It's the unglamorous essentials. Completely unsexy, but absolutely vital—the roads, the shovels, the equipment, all the fundamental infrastructure."

Read "What's Your Space Strategy?" by Andrew Parlock for an in-depth examination of how companies that fail to adapt to the emerging space economy risk the same fate as telecommunications giant Nortel, which dismissed the internet as "pop-gun consumer technology" before filing for bankruptcy in 2009.

With orbital debris emerging as a critical challenge for sustainable space operations, what innovative approaches is Space Phoenix developing to address this growing concern?

While acknowledging the severity of space debris—with approximately 45,000 tracked objects currently in orbit—Andrew emphasizes the true scale of the challenge. "Space is genuinely vast, multi-layered, and three-dimensional. It's nothing like the two-dimensional surface we drive on."

Space Phoenix takes a multi-faceted approach. First, they see opportunity where others see waste. "Some of what's labeled as 'debris' actually represents valuable assets—satellites that failed to deploy properly or whose batteries died before servicing. By retrieving these objects, we can foster an entirely new industry."

More fundamentally, Andrew outlines their circular economy model: "We bring back 100% of everything we place into orbit, aside from minimal outgassing. We leave absolutely nothing in space. We're truly committed to the circular economy. I hope Space Phoenix will be recognized as a pioneer in this approach."

He points to government initiatives already underway: "Japanese and Korean governments are actively addressing this issue. NASA is too. Space-faring nations will increasingly focus on it—America, Europe, and probably led by Asian countries I've mentioned, with Europe following closely."

Andrew references Jeff Bezos's recent comments about making next-generation satellites returnable, suggesting an industry-wide shift. "This mentality of 'It's no big deal, we'll just burn everything up in the upper atmosphere' sounds disturbingly similar to chemical companies in the 1930s and 40s saying, 'We'll just dump waste into rivers or oceans without consequences.' We know how that ended. And atmospheric burning isn't much better."

Andrew predicts a "seismic shift" within 5-10 years, led by companies embracing the circular space economy. "We can initially mitigate the debris problem, then solve it completely. It's not insurmountable. We haven't reached the Kessler syndrome yet—where debris density becomes so high that we're effectively trapped on Earth. We can solve this with smart approaches."

He highlights several companies driving this change: "Organizations like Space Phoenix, Inversion—which operates at a similar scale to us—the Exploration Company from Germany, Stoke Aerospace from Seattle, and Neorbit from Italy. These companies are unified in saying, 'This entire concept must be circular. Everything launched must return.'"

To illustrate current space hardware approaches, Andrew offers a compelling analogy: "Imagine driving your car and getting a flat tire—then abandoning the vehicle roadside and throwing away the keys. How would that shape car design? They'd be prohibitively expensive. And the tires? Probably uncomfortable since they'd be engineered for maximum durability at perhaps $10,000 each. This mirrors today's space industry. Innovation is stifled and market development constrained because everything's a one-way trip."

He continues: "It's the only scenario where you'd spend $25 million knowing you'll never see that asset again. If it works, maybe you recoup your investment. If not, you launch another $25 million object. Investors have somehow accepted this: 'Sure, we'll put up $50 million and amortize it over a single satellite.' It's completely irrational. We must transform this approach—for planetary wellbeing, for the health of the LEO economy, and for our investment community's sustainability."

Industry forecasts suggest a $1.6 trillion space economy by 2030, with exponential growth in satellite deployments. How is Space Phoenix positioning itself to leverage this remarkable expansion?

Andrew reiterates their "49er strategy" of providing essential infrastructure rather than directly participating in resource extraction. "The next industrial revolution will unfold in the Low Earth Orbit economy. What's our role in supporting that transformation? We build the fundamentals—the roads, the tools, the equipment. It's completely unglamorous, but absolutely essential infrastructure."

He acknowledges this approach lacks the flash factor but emphasizes its critical importance: "I always use this example: think about the last package delivered to your home. You didn't exclaim, 'Wow, did you see that delivery vehicle? That van was impressive!' No, you simply said, 'My package arrived.' You don't care about the delivery method—whether it came in a Toyota or a box truck. You're completely unaware of the infrastructure that made it possible."

This seamless experience represents his vision for the space economy: "You go online, select what you need, and within days it arrives at your doorstep. You focus entirely on the service and the value it provides, with no thought to the delivery logistics. That's where the space economy needs to evolve, but very few industry players are approaching it from this perspective. Everyone wants to create the next flashy innovation. We have no such aspirations. Our mission is simply to provide the fundamental support that enables everyone else to succeed."

Having navigated both government agencies and commercial ventures in the space sector, how do you envision the relationship between public institutions and private enterprise transforming in the coming decade?

"It will unfold quite differently than before," Andrew says with a hint of irony before acknowledging that the pattern is actually remarkably familiar. "Government spending dominated the early aircraft industry. Then we needed infrastructure—airports built by federal and local governments. The FAA established regulations and oversight, creating an environment where private companies could thrive. The path was cleared for commercial success."

He observes the same historical pattern with transportation and shipping infrastructure—government investments that enable private enterprise. "I expect a similar trajectory for the space economy," he notes.

"We're already seeing this pattern play out," he continues. "SpaceX pioneered truly successful private launch capabilities. Before that, private launch options were limited—historians might disagree with my assessment—but you had the French company Ariane. Though technically a public-private partnership, the vast majority of their work came from government contracts. You also had Northrop Grumman with their launch vehicles and the Pegasus horizontal launch system—nominally private, but essentially quasi-governmental."

SpaceX exemplifies this evolutionary path: "The government invested substantially in SpaceX, which has now achieved remarkable success." He points to other launch companies following similar trajectories—Isar, Baltimore-based Rocket Lab, and South Korean ventures succeeding with government backing. "These launch companies will operate from government-constructed spaceports."

Andrew highlights an interesting global expansion in space infrastructure. "Kenya is developing an extensive spaceport just south of Mombasa. Several equatorial nations in the South Pacific are building spaceports as well."

The space economy itself is evolving beyond its data-centric foundations. "Consider our cell phones—I have two right here, and part of our conversation signal might be traveling through satellites. But we're transitioning beyond a purely data-focused economy. Until now, space has essentially been data-centric—satellites providing imagery or enabling communications. Physical goods rarely return from space. You can't purchase space-manufactured items at your local store, except perhaps moon rocks from NASA's gift shop," he adds with a smile.

He continues: "Space Phoenix will pioneer this next phase: bringing material A to space, performing process B, and delivering product C back to Earth. Material, process, product—that's conventional business. It's identical to what happens at factories in my neighborhood—raw materials enter, undergo processing, and emerge as marketable products. We're beginning to see this model in space with companies like Space Forge and others building the necessary infrastructure."

While government funding currently dominates Space Phoenix's contracts, Andrew forecasts a significant shift: "Our initial five contracts are all NASA-related—labs and airport contracts. But examining our 2027-2029 projections, government spending represents less than 10%. The remainder is commercial, reflecting market evolution."

He also notes a transformation within NASA itself: "There are remarkable individuals at NASA. John Vickers and his colleague Kevin Engelbert are leading what they call InSPAC—In-Space Production Applications. They've secured a reasonable budget. While the individual awards aren't enormous, they're focused on removing barriers for commercial industry to develop a thriving economy."

"NASA is pivoting from exclusively massive projects. They'll maintain their flagship initiatives—like the James Webb telescope and commercial space stations—but they're increasingly adopting venture capital-like approaches, providing seed funding for initial research and space commercialization."

Andrew predicts this evolution will continue: "Eventually, this model will extend to the cislunar economy. Our grandchildren might witness a Martian economy. The science fiction enthusiast in me loves that possibility, but my MBA perspective remains skeptical about Mars's near-term commercial viability."

The space industry faces unique supply chain vulnerabilities and capital constraints. What strategic approaches has Space Phoenix developed to overcome these significant hurdles?

"This is actually fundamental to our strategy," Andrew explains. Space Phoenix is implementing what he calls a "small, medium, large, tall, grande, venti approach" to align perfectly with the market's current state.

"Most payloads going to space and returning are relatively small right now. This necessitates a small, robust, high-cadence platform. That's our Hermes platform," he says, gesturing to the spacecraft visible behind him during our interview. "It's a resilient system built with off-the-shelf components. For almost every component on this spacecraft, we maintain relationships with two different suppliers."

The company plans a measured scaling trajectory. "From there, we'll advance to our medium-sized platform—currently designated Athena. It will be somewhat larger with slightly lower launch frequency, but capable of transporting greater mass. This progression follows the market's natural evolution toward larger payloads."

This approach is validated directly by customer requirements: "A key customer approached us requesting, 'Can you transport 25 kilograms by 2027?' Absolutely. 'Can you handle 250 kilograms by 2028?' Certainly. 'Can you accommodate 500 kilograms by 2029-2030?' We believe so. This trajectory reflects where the market is heading. We're pacing alongside market development, de-risking our operations by avoiding premature overbuilding."

Andrew notes significant improvement in supply chain challenges compared to the pandemic era. "Looking back at 2020-2021, the combination of COVID and other factors created serious constraints around key components—thrusters, attitude determination control systems, even antennas. Those supply chain challenges have diminished substantially."

"Additive manufacturing is proving instrumental in mitigating risks for non-technical components initially, but increasingly for highly specialized components as well. 3D printing technology is helping overcome many of these supply challenges."

He identifies an emerging constraint: "The cost of lifting materials to orbit remains prohibitive. As our payload capacities increase, if we're returning 1,000 kilograms of product, we necessarily must transport 1,000 kilograms upward first. This represents a looming constraint. We'll eventually reach physical and economic limits where costs simply can't decrease further because fundamental physics imposes boundaries. Transporting 1,000-10,000 kilograms both up and down is inherently expensive."

This could restrict certain applications: "At this point, you begin questioning whether fundamental physical laws create insurmountable constraints. Some innovations might remain perpetually novel. Certain semiconductor materials may emerge, but their astronomical cost will prevent widespread adoption. This becomes a genuine concern."

However, Andrew envisions potential solutions: "Emerging technologies like near-Earth asteroid mining and 3D printing using lunar regolith hold tremendous promise for sourcing materials directly in space. One theoretical solution to the space debris problem involves collecting and recycling debris in orbit—a fascinating concept. But I believe the real breakthrough will come through near-Earth asteroid mining with materials returned to Earth."

Yet these solutions introduce complex economic implications: "Consider the market disruption when we begin extracting from a near-Earth asteroid containing 100 million tons of platinum. What happens to the platinum market? What occurs when we potentially flood markets with platinum, cobalt, or lithium—all resources readily accessible on near-Earth asteroids? Market fundamentals undergo dramatic shifts, presenting fascinating new challenges. For every problem we solve, we encounter another layer of complexity."

As multi-orbit systems create new possibilities across the space ecosystem, how do you foresee this landscape transforming, and where does Space Phoenix establish its unique position within this evolutionary wave?

Andrew immediately takes issue with a term in the question. "You had me right up to the point where you said 'riding this wave of innovation.' Let's pause on using the word 'innovation' for now," he cautions, before elaborating.

He approaches the question by sketching a conceptual framework. "Imagine a two-by-two matrix. Along the horizontal axis, you have launch and return cadence—mission frequency. Take the Dragon, an incredible and highly capable vehicle, but it only flies three or maybe four times annually. Perhaps they'll eventually reach six launches per year, but that's still quite limited for round-trip missions. So you plot this launch cadence horizontally, then on the vertical axis, you scale from extremely expensive to what we'll call 'price efficient'—because nothing in space is truly inexpensive."

Within this framework, he positions companies in the "lower left quadrant"—expensive with infrequent missions: "Here you find SpaceX with Dragon, Sierra Space with Dream Chaser, Boeing with Starliner—hopefully their next launch goes well—and the Artemis capsule, which I believe is also a Boeing project. These represent extremely expensive vehicles."

Moving upward on his chart, he identifies companies with larger payload capacities: "Progressing upward, you have the Exploration Company and Atmos, both from Germany, each capable of transporting over 2,000 kilograms per launch. There's also Stoke Aerospace from Seattle. None carry human passengers, making them significantly more price-efficient without the extensive safety requirements. Everything becomes easier and more cost-effective, though these are still massive vehicles."

"And in the upper right quadrant, you have companies like Space Phoenix—offering rapid mission cadence with cost efficiency." Andrew perceives opportunity across this entire spectrum, describing the market as abundant rather than competitive. "There will be demand throughout this matrix. Our market approach recognizes that the current in-space manufacturing sector—perhaps $5 billion today—is projected to expand to $500 billion. This pie will continually grow, requiring more industry participants."

The market currently faces significant constraints: "It's under strain. It's limited because, frankly, we haven't fully developed the necessary technology. We need more companies like Space Phoenix, Inversion, and Stoke Aerospace. We need tenfold more of each."

However, Andrew critiques the industry's overwhelming focus on technological innovation: "I believe too many companies are pursuing the next technological breakthrough, the bleeding edge of innovation, while neglecting business model innovation." He recounts a revealing conversation: "Just last week, I spoke with a major venture capital firm specializing in space investments. They stated unequivocally that they will no longer invest in space companies focused exclusively on technology. We've emphasized innovation so heavily that we've forgotten about viable business models."

Space Phoenix aims to transform the industry through business model innovation rather than technological disruption. "That's where Space Phoenix is changing the dynamic. We emphasize robust platform development. The platform you see behind me uses off-the-shelf components. It's durable and highly reusable—not revolutionary from a technological perspective, but transformative in terms of launch frequency and cost efficiency. We need to innovate both technologically and in business models, and I believe insufficient attention has been given to business model innovation."

Andrew particularly criticizes the industry's vertical integration tendencies. "The space industry—and my colleagues might take issue with this—needs to move away from vertical integration. Everyone wants to control their entire supply chain." He describes a telling interaction: "Several months ago, I spoke with a commercial space station company that proudly announced they were developing proprietary thrusters. I suggested they could purchase existing ones from established manufacturers. That effectively ended our conversation—I might as well have insulted their ancestry. They were offended by the mere suggestion they wouldn't build everything in-house."

This approach ultimately restricts industry progress, in his assessment. "To achieve cost efficiency, we must reconsider horizontal integration or at least moderate pure vertical integration to a more balanced approach with novel horizontal elements alongside vertical components. Space Phoenix might be excessively horizontally integrated—I'm willing to consider that possibility, but I don't believe we've reached that point yet."

Read "The Fourth Wave" by Space Phoenix Systems to understand how this emerging era in space commercialization builds upon Alvin Toffler's technological waves theory and presents unprecedented opportunities to solve critical challenges in sustainability, health, and global economics.

The growing intersection between defense capabilities and commercial ventures in space creates complex dynamics. How might this delicate balance influence the future landscape for companies like Space Phoenix?

"Our adversaries have already destroyed objects in space," Andrew acknowledges, before adding historical context. "Though we effectively cast the first stone—the F-15 demonstrated capability to neutralize low Earth orbit satellites in the early 90s, possibly even earlier."

He frames the situation through the lens of mutually assured destruction: "It resembles the nuclear deterrence concept. Every nation wants to utilize space. Everyone recognizes the moon's importance for research and scientific missions. Mars will become increasingly significant over the next 10-25 years. And returning to the Kessler syndrome—no nation desires a scenario where orbital debris prevents future launches. Nobody wants that outcome."

"Space militarization has been ongoing for decades," he continues. "Consider Sputnik, the very first satellite. As it traversed American airspace broadcasting its radio signal—that pioneering satellite wasn't primarily scientific, but military in nature."

"The critical issue today is kinetic action," Andrew explains. "Physically destroying another satellite creates substantial problems—but these problems affect everyone. Unlike traditional warfare—where sinking an enemy vessel represents a clear victory—destroying a satellite likely impacts your own orbital assets as well."

He believes this reality promotes a level of cooperation that "will persist out of necessity," comparing it to global economic interdependence. "It parallels the global economy. No rational actor wants to destabilize the U.S. economy because it would trigger worldwide economic disruption. The same applies to Chinese, Russian, or other major economies."

Andrew identifies several emerging concerns. "I anticipate challenges regarding satellite capture operations. This sounds like something from a James Bond film—intercepting satellites and returning them to Earth. While this has military applications, it also presents fascinating commercial possibilities."

The lunar surface represents another area of strategic importance: "The moon is becoming increasingly relevant. China has already established the first operational presence on the lunar far side. This creates interesting dynamics since monitoring such activities requires lunar orbiters."

Traditional military applications will continue: "Space will remain militarized for Earth observation, battlefield awareness, signals intelligence, electronic intelligence, and related purposes. These capabilities retain tremendous strategic value."

While conventional destructive actions seem unlikely among major powers, Andrew believes "the concept of launching kinetic attacks against satellites damages the environment for all participants. Mutually assured destruction will likely maintain equilibrium."

However, "asymmetric threats" concern him deeply. "While established spacefaring nations like Russia, China, and the U.S. will likely avoid direct confrontation, asymmetric threats present serious challenges. Space Phoenix's fundamental premise is eventually reducing access costs below $30,000 per kilogram. That represents remarkable affordability. What happens then? The asymmetric threat of deliberate orbital disruption by actors unconcerned with consequences becomes problematic. We must remain vigilant."

He draws on his background: "I conducted extensive work on asymmetric threats approximately 15 years ago, with significant time in counter-terrorism operations, so these issues resonate strongly."

He also raises a novel concern: "I may not have delivered the very first presentation on space piracy, but I'm certainly among the pioneers addressing this topic. Consider the implications when we're developing $50 million worth of next-generation semiconductor materials in space. If I covet that $50 million, what prevents theft? What happens when the next breakthrough cancer treatment—potentially worth billions—is developed in orbit?"

This introduces complex legal questions. "If a competitor intercepts these materials over their sovereign territory, how does space law apply? Is the legal framework evolving as rapidly as emerging threats? I'm uncertain. I know numerous brilliant minds—far more knowledgeable than myself—are addressing these questions."

Andrew concludes with a provocative assessment: "I believe space piracy will materialize as a genuine threat before kinetic attacks against satellites become commonplace."

What transformative developments do you foresee shaping the space economy's trajectory, and how might they redefine our relationship with space in the coming decades?

In his closing reflections, Andrew expresses frustration with the industry's prevailing competitive mindset. "The vertical integration approach in space is problematic—people constantly ask us about competition. We're repeatedly questioned: 'Competition, competition.' Look, we're facing a $4 trillion market that remains dramatically underserved and constrained—why this fixation on competition?"

He elaborates: "This vertical integration mentality influences market development, and unfortunately, our investors often lack perspective. They don't recognize that there's abundant opportunity to expand this market significantly. Everyone obsesses over dividing the existing pie. I keep asking, 'Do you comprehend how enormous this pie could become? Stop focusing on competition and instead consider how we collectively expand opportunities for everyone involved?'"

This perspective distinguishes Space Phoenix from others. "To be frank, Space Phoenix represents one of the few voices advocating this approach currently. And honestly, while it's finally helping us gain traction now, I believe it hindered our fundraising efforts during our initial six months."

He recalls revealing investor reactions: "Some responded, 'You're not sufficiently protective of your innovations. You haven't established adequate intellectual property barriers around your technology.' My response was simple: 'That's unnecessary. Delivery vans don't require IP moats. Build additional vehicles and deliver more products. More delivery vehicles mean more packages reaching consumers.'"

As our conversation concludes, it's evident that Andrew's vision transcends merely manufacturing spacecraft. He's championing a fundamental paradigm shift in approaching the space economy—moving away from competitive technology races toward collaborative infrastructure development. From his perspective, the next revolution in space won't be defined by who creates the most advanced rocket, but rather who establishes systems making space accessible, practical, and sustainable for humanity as a whole.

Read "Space Phoenix Systems Value Proposition" to explore their technology roadmap from the "Hermes" spacecraft (2026/27) through the larger "Athena" (2027/28) and "Zeus" (2029) platforms, designed to provide scalable solutions as the market expands to support increasingly larger payload capacities.

About Andrew Parlock

Andrew Parlock is a distinguished leader in the global space industry, combining technical expertise with strategic vision. With over 25 years of experience in domestic and international markets, a B.S. in Aerospace Engineering, and an MBA, he has a proven track record of delivering complex solutions across government, defense, and commercial sectors. His ability to lead cross-functional teams, drive innovation, and identify new opportunities has been central to his success. His international experience is invaluable in his current role, where he navigates the evolving needs of the global space industry, national security, and emerging markets.

As Founder and CEO of Space Phoenix Systems, Andrew applies his leadership skills and deep industry knowledge to revolutionize space logistics. Under his guidance, Space Phoenix is transforming how organizations launch, manage, and retrieve payloads, technology, and products from space, enhancing efficiency and accessibility. His vision is to create solutions that address critical challenges, advancing space exploration and commercialization.

Previously, Andrew served as Managing Director of Space Forge’s U.S. expansion and Director of New Business for ICEYE US, where he successfully established and expanded market presence. At Space Forge, he led U.S. market entry in in-space manufacturing, advanced materials, and microgravity research, focusing on supermaterials for societal challenges. At ICEYE, he worked with the U.S. Department of Defense, intelligence community, and strategic partners to support national security efforts.

Earlier, as Senior Manager for Space Resiliency and Advanced Programs at Northrop Grumman, Andrew helped develop advanced space-based defense technologies and played a key role in Northrop’s Emerging Technology Innovation Lab, driving innovation and fostering diverse talent through non-traditional hiring.

A New Jersey native and West Virginia University Mountaineer, Andrew earned his MBA from Michigan State University’s Eli Broad College of Business. Now based in Baltimore with his family, he mentors emerging industry leaders and advances space technologies. He serves on the Regional Advisory Board of NPower Inc., a national technology nonprofit, and received the Greater Baltimore Committee’s Bridging the Gap Achievement Award for mentoring young talent—a lifelong passion.

For more information, contact Andrew at Andrew@space-phoenix.com