 No, right. Well, we are just going to jump right into our discussion. I will introduce each of my speakers as I ask them their first question. Ray, we are going to start with you. This is Ray Fielding from the UK Space Agency, relatively new to the job, so we won't go too hard on him. But I'd like to start off with an overview of the government's approach to this topic. How the UK Space Agency and others that you work with view it. How do you look at fulfilling your duty for oversight and regulation while also very actively promoting commercial space industry within the United Kingdom? Thank you. We take three approaches to do this. To some, they're robust, flexible, and timely. And to take each one of those in turn, the robust approach that we take is we want to be a gold standard regulator. We've been regulating satellites for decades now and have considerable experience of doing so. So we know that our regulations would stand the test of time, robust, and include all of the legislation, both national and international, which they have to do. We've also know that they meet the needs of what we want to do in terms of policy. So we have sustainability assessments built into them. We have safety and security assessments built into them as well. So if you license through the UK, and this does sound like a sales pitch, but I'll do it anyway, if you license through the UK, you know you get a stamp of quality which tells your operators and your investors and your insurance market that you've gone through a solid process. You've been really looked at carefully and you've got the seal of approval to go forward with safe, secure operations which are also sustainable. The flexible approach that we take as well to do this because you could be extremely robust but also stifle the markets. We add flexibility into that. And there's a comedy show in the UK you probably won't be aware of, but they have a sketch in there which is called Computer Says No. And it's all about the famous customer service you get in the UK where a person comes in and asks for a helper and then Computer Says No. And we need to make sure that we don't have that approach and we can be flexible to the needs, especially new operators, new space, SMEs who come in with concepts, an SME coming in with a wall of regulation. Government regulation can be extremely intimidating for them to the point where they might think, well, perhaps not go into space, it looks far too difficult and complex. We have to understand the needs, we have to work with them. Especially for the new technologies which are coming on board the RPO operations. We've licensed to ADR missions, active W removal missions, and to do that we've been flexible working with the companies to adapt our policies and regulations to meet their needs. So there's that flexibility we're building into. And there's the speed. Things are happening very, very fast in the space sector. We have to adapt. I mean, we can be flexible and robust but if it takes 10 years to do anything, people are going to go elsewhere. And again, we don't get that growth which we're seeking to achieve especially in the UK. It's all about catalyzing investments and growing the space sector. So we need to do things quickly. And to do that, for instance, I run a lot of innovation programs. I run the National ADR missions, IOSM servicing. And when we commissioned work, we're currently in phase B for the ADR work. We're built into that, a regulation consultation piece right at the start. So we get those conversations moving early. We get the people in the room early. So we understand if we have policy requirements which need a flexible approach to policy, we start those conversations and dialogues quickly. And that means we don't miss the boat as it were. And we also recognize that the market's changing. So we're consulting with industry and partners all of the time. In fact, we've got a consultation just launching in imminently where we throw out the regulation approach, ask for comments, ask for future needs, ask for feedback so we work together with the community. So hopefully we can anticipate some of those needs as they come forward, allowing us to adapt quickly in a speedy nature which is required by our community. I think you kind of teed up something else I wanted to say which is the consultative nature that we want to get into here. So it's really interesting to hear that that is a priority in the UK but it's also a priority in our room. So just to remind everybody, we do have a poll that's going to talk about some of these priorities and what they should be and how government should be looking at us. So if you haven't filled that out, please do, we'll be looking at that later. So thank you, Ray, for laying out a really thorough overview of the almost the values that are driving how the UK Space Agency looks at this. I want to turn now to Marissa who is here representing the Space Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission. Obviously the United States has a really complex regulatory environment for space companies. Can you share a little bit about the history of the Space Bureau, why it was created and your sort of views on the overall approach that the United States is taking to this issue? Particularly I'm interested in hearing, how do you coordinate with entities within the US government to actually ensure that we have a clear regulatory environment for various space companies? Sure. So I'll start by just giving a little bit of background on the FCC's role in some of these issues. And the FCC is the regulator for communications in the United States, including communications with satellites. And the FCC reviews as part of its regulation of non-government, so including commercial satellites, the FCC reviews the Orbital Debris Mitigation Plans associated with those satellites or systems in its application process. And so that's been a little bit of the role of the FCC to date in some of the topics discussed during this event. In April of this year, the FCC Chairwoman announced the launch of the Space Bureau within the FCC which is now taken on some of the functions that had previously been part of the International Bureau and elevated some of those functions to the Bureau level at the agency. And so now the FCC has a Bureau that's just dedicated to space and the regulation of satellite services. So it's an exciting time at the agency for space regulation. And several of the rationales behind the creation of this new Bureau were to ensure that the FCC was keeping pace with the pace of development in the satellite industry and enabling innovation in that area. It's been such a huge area for change. And the FCC wanted to make sure that it's really staying up in terms of its ability to regulate and ensure that it's not hindering any applications from moving through the process for satellites. So this is a relatively recent development, but I think we're all feeling really optimistic about the new Space Bureau and some of the additional resources that that will enable at the FCC in terms of its processes in regulating satellites. And in terms of the FCC's sort of role in coordinating with other government agencies in the United States, we have processes both formally and informally. So in terms of spectrum use for satellites and satellite systems, we coordinate formally with the NTIA, the National Telecommunications Information Association, which handles the federal side of the spectrum use. So we coordinate formally with that agency and there's a memorandum of understanding between the two agencies, the FCC and the NTIA. But we also have informal coordination for just general topics that we're looking at. And so in specific areas and specific applications where there's another agency that has expertise, staff will reach out to staff from that agency and coordinate on some of those issues, including looking at whether the other agency maybe already has a regulatory structure that covers some of those activities. So for example, if the FAA covers certain activities in its regulatory scope, then the FCC would discuss with the FAA and defer to that agency in terms of who the regulator would be for those activities. So there's sort of a variety of different ways in which the FCC coordinates with other agencies in the US government as part of its role in the regulation of satellites. It's interesting the focus that we hear from both of you on the acknowledgement and the need to be responsive to the speed of development in the commercial industry. It seems to be fairly well understood and looking at it as a way of creating government, not exactly known for always moving quickly to find ways to do that. So that's a great point that we wanna return to. Now I'm really pleased to turn to our industry representatives for this session. I'm delighted to welcome CalPAC from Project Kuiper at Amazon, Yuya from Axel Space in Japan, and Manny who is the UK Managing Director for OrbitFab. You're all companies, they're headquartered in three different countries, but they also operate around the globe. And so I'd like to invite each of you to sort of share your initial thoughts on this topic about how government can support commercial industry, but specifically what's working, what's not working. We're not interested in naming names. But I'd like to share your experiences about, do you find that different regulatory regimes have really made a difference in that particular country and have helped or hampered your operations? Manny, I'll go ahead and start with you. Yeah, well firstly, thank you for having me on the panel and for organizing such a great event. Yeah, it's a very important kind of for a company that was established in the US, headquartered in Colorado. Our focus as a company is around enabling and all bit refuelling capabilities. What I left on General Shaw was talking about, maneuvering without regret, areas where mobility is key fueling, we believe. Refueling will be really crucial for that. And as the panel has already talked about, the complexity of some of these missions that will be taking place. Never mind the normal kind of satellite operations where you have Earth observation applications, sac-homes, scenarios where we will need to dock with assets in orbit. That gets very complex very quickly. So creating the right regulatory regime to enable that is a major challenge for the foreseeable future. And we're trying to be supportive of the different working groups in the UK as well as my colleagues in the US are engaging on those efforts. So I think having this industry government kind of working groups in collaboration to understand where the challenges are between finding that balance of making the regulations work but not being too prescriptive so that they hinder the end goals. So we're navigating that as we speak with the different working groups in the UK. And some of the challenges that we've seen really are around working across different kind of organizations as well where you have, for example, orbit fab refuelling, a debris removal mission. What does that scenario look like? How complex is that? What are the liability implications if something goes wrong? So a lot of complexity as you kind of work into the weeds of the issue. And we're trying to, there's been some wargaming in terms of the different scenarios that might take place, how we can have the best outcome from a commercial standpoint where regulation isn't getting in the way. What we find is that a lot of it is really around ensuring the minimum headaches for a company, especially for SMEs where we don't have a huge number of resources to allocate to resolving some of the licensing challenges. So really finding that balance is crucial. So we're trying to support where we can and make that happen. But yeah, ensuring the cost isn't prohibitive and the process to do that isn't prohibitive is gonna be key for us. It's a great point about the resources that constrain especially in your smaller companies that I've heard that myself saying, oh, we'd really like to get involved in space sustainability, but I don't even have a government affairs person on staff yet. Or we don't always have the resources to hire a fleet of lawyers. Like we really have to be careful about that. So it's a great point. Kaobach, I'd like to turn to you. What are your thoughts on this? Is a great question. First, thank you for the invitation to be part of this wonderful event. The fifth year of it, I think it speaks for itself in terms of the importance of the issue. At Kuiper, I will say that our view on the role of government in promoting and supporting the development of the space sector has been extremely positive. I think there is the recognition. I've been in the satellite industry for 20 plus years. I have not seen this level of attention given by governments basically supporting tremendous investment and innovation across the industry. In every part of the industry, we have not seen this kind of support, this kind of interest, this kind of investment, this kind of dynamism. And governments across the board, I think, are doing their very best to try to address those issues and create new solutions. I think the FCC's role in having the new bureau, it is more than form only. It is really about taking the satellite industry and highlighting it and saying, look, we need to bring the chair's attention to this important industry in a way that didn't really exist quite in the same way before when it was the International Bureau. So we think that's incredibly powerful and important. And we're seeing that really across the world in lots of ways. The challenges I think are worth mentioning as well, and the challenges are inherent in innovation and change. That investment, that sign of success, frankly, breeds new issues to deal with, new challenges to handle. I think space safety and sustainability is one of them. I don't wanna call it a problem because I really don't think this is a problem. It is an issue for us to address and move forward on. Industry has done a wonderful job in developing best practices, working towards that, working together to find solutions, all while government is a partner, bringing us in, talking to us about what we need, also about how our solutions meet the requirements of the day. So I think this is a really positive moment for the satellite industry writ large. I think government support is truly across the board. I think the value of the satellite industry, I'll talk a little bit more about this later, but the value of the satellite industry should not be lost. It's not just what we're doing, what we did yesterday, what we're doing today, but what we're going to do tomorrow to address the requirements of mankind, I think should be part of this discussion and debate. Yeah, absolutely, we can't say we have, we'll have to be good for the goodness of our heart. It's because of the value that space is creating. It's because of what we're achieving and what we're able to understand and do and the innovations and the technologies. I also like your point about not assuming everything is a problem. I used to work with a consultant who would say treat your problems like treasures. And it was kind of that same sentiment that if you approach everything as a problem, you're going to get one solution. But if you approach it with creativity and positivity, you might end up in a different place. So I think that's a really interesting point. I want to turn now to you. What has been Axel's space's experience here? Okay, thank you, Crystal. It's my great honor to be part of this exciting event. So I'd like to talk about the Japanese case. So recently, the Japanese government has been investing a huge amount of money to nurture the commercial space industry. For example, a few years ago, the annual space budget of the government was around three billion US dollars. And it became five billion last year. And the legislators supporting the space industry are proposing that the government secure around 10 billion in the near future. So good thing about it from this space startup perspective is that the government has a strong interest and high expectations for new space companies like Axel's space, not just for the legacy companies. And we have already been financially supported by the government for some projects like the establishment of the way we mass-manufacture the micro-satellites and also the development of the optical communication terminal. And this year, we won the new project together with the Space Compass, which is a joint venture between NTT and Skype Perfect JSAT to construct the data-related satellite constellation. You know, and it's a huge project and totaling 600 million US dollars. And we're gonna develop around 15 satellites by 2027 or 2028. Even in this exciting situation, we still have a problem in Japan. The most of the government projects are R&D or the demonstration. And they will never promise to be our customer of the service that we are to develop. So for us, it is quite difficult to have a career image of the business. And it also means that we might not be able to have a solid customer base at the beginning, which leads to the difficulties of getting strategic investment from the venture capital or the other financial institutions. So if the Japanese government want private space companies to scale their business globally, they need to play a new role. I mean, the government as a user of the service that space companies are to develop. Again, so we'd like the government to be a big and stable customer of our service. So next I'd like to talk about the regulations. When we started our business back in 2008, there were no regulations that cover the commercial space activities. It's because almost all these space activities were managed by JAXA or its former agencies. But after we succeeded in a big fundraise in 2015, other space startups followed to boost their unique space activities. So in response to this situation, the Japanese government enacted two new laws which are the Space Activities Act and Remote Sensing Act. And the government did, and when they make these regulations, they did the research of the equivalent laws in other countries like the US, Europe, and they also interviewed space companies so that they're trying not to make it hinder the space activities in the private sector. So I think that's why we never faced critical regulatory issues in the past. So of course, there is a review process of the government when we want to launch a satellite, but transparency is secured in that process so we can pass it as long as we satisfy the requirements that are explicitly described. So that's the Japanese situation. Thank you. It's really interesting to hear the different ways to view government as the regulator but also as the customer. And so actually you kind of teed me up perfectly for my next question to Ray, which is, as we heard yesterday from Rebecca Everdeen and from Julie Black, the UK has really made it a priority to directly invest in industry, particularly in the space sustainability area. Tell us more about why this approach was the one that you've taken, especially from a direct investment perspective. How are you doing this? I've even seen reports recently that the UK has received 17% of global space private capital since 2015, which makes it one of the highest in the world. Why do you think that is? And what is your, you're thinking about how you're using your dollars or in this case pounds? Wisely, I like to answer that question. So I think what's really changed in the past couple of years is the development of a really solid national space strategy. And we've had strategies before in the UK about space and apologies to my DC colleagues in the audience, but they were basically the old strategies retitled for the current year and then pushed out again. But the current space strategy we are working to was developed from the ground up by consultation that word again, but it was so important to do that and a lot of effort internally across governments. So it wasn't just the space agency, it was across all of the departments about what is needed for the UK to deliver societal benefits and economic growth and that coalesced into that national space strategy. And from that and in that was a commitment or an aspiration, I should say, to be a world leader in sustainability and support sustainability as a driver for growth going forward and also a way for the UK to demonstrate its commitment to its liability. We want to be a large scale site operator. I believe we are the second or maybe the third or one of the two, but an awful lot of satellites are based out of the UK and operated from the UK. So we have a responsibility to, as a nation state, we are potentially liable, although that is a minefield by itself and we have responsibilities there on that issue. So the national space strategy committed us to sustainability and that has really been a huge catalyst. I've been in the space agency for 12 years now. We've had a direction of travel, which, as I said, was last year's direction of travel, retitle for the current year's direction of travel, but this really has given us extreme focus. So much so, as Julia mentioned in the keynote yesterday, we've restructured the space agency. So we have my position, we have Julia's position, we have a team for sustainability and that is allowed us to give a really solid focus on where we prioritise our money for sustainability. Because before, many different sections, Earth observation, space science, GPS type activity, all very important, but sustainability was kind of smeared through. It was in there, nobody was really responsible, it was hard to pick out, it was hard to give focus, it was hard to have a coherent strategy for. Now we're getting there. Now we've got priority, we have a plan by Minister George Freeman, plan for sustainability. We have to go report to him a week after this conference about our progress on said plans will have been held to account on the activities which we're committed to. That's kicked off a range of new activities and new funding just for sustainability as well. So all of that activity, all of that political focus, the realisation that the UK wants to be a leader in sustainability, explicitly focus has really given us a laser-like precision on where we're spending our money. And that's committed us to the regulation work, the consultation work, the improving of the engagement for the space community to be involved in developing that regulation to grow the sector sustainably, as well as developing things like the standards work, and it was really good to see yesterday in the pitch that the fact that the standards in the poll came out as one of the top drivers for helping the space community. We've got a large focus, we've kicked off on that, Earth Space Sustainability Initiative, it's got the acronym right, that will be led by UK government and the community to develop a set of voluntary standards. So we don't have to produce tons and tons and tons of regulation, we have the voluntary standards which people want to adhere to and apply into their business models, full life cycle application of those standards into their business models, as well as the regulation approach which sits alongside. So like I said, we've kicked off those activities and the work we're doing on the technology developments is absolutely linked to those activities. So the work we're doing on enabling technologies, raising TRL, the work we're doing on iOSM, looking at things like refuelling, looking at things like ADR, factor that in right from the start so we have a coherent approach all the way through. So we don't have a disconnect or we don't have a situation where we develop a space mission to remove say a non-UK registered object and then we find the whole thing sits on the launch powder when it contained it for three years because we need to then speak to any other nation state and work out the regulatory aspects of capturing a non-UK based object because of course, one person's salvage or servicing mission is a non-nation's piracy unless you get the regulations right and agreements in place. And it's sometimes seen as a bit of a dry subject, sometimes seen as a bit of, you know, that the regulation sale sits on the side as a periphery but I think we've recognized in the agency the regulation sale and the same with our DCIC colleagues is embedded all the way through. We've got a, I suppose the Americans call it a candy, we call it a stick of rock. It's a kind of a solid, sugary type object and normally has some writing and it's all the way through. You can break bits of this candy off in the writing as you can, you can't get me to it, it's embedded in. And that's how we see regulation with our technology programs, with our approach, with our policy, it's absolutely embedded in. It's not a side aspect and that's how hopefully we get to an answer to your question about how we focus our money, our pounds, as wisely and as efficiently as possible. I commend you for working space piracy in your minds. Yeah, that's wonderful, thank you. I'd actually like to ask Manny to respond directly. I mean, my understanding is that OrbitFab's office in the UK is actually about a year old. You know, what compelled the company to make these decisions, you know, are there aspects of the regulatory environment in the UK that really led you to that decision? Yeah, kind of use of one of my favorite quotes on this. Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome. I believe it was Charlie Munger who said that. But really the UK space agency kind of drove the incentive for us to establish in the UK by having in the UK ADR program from the outset the concept of refurbishable spacecraft. So in the original requirements, the mission to remove two or more objects had an additional requirement, which was the spacecraft itself should be refurbishable. So they weren't being prescriptive about, oh, it needs to be refuelable, it needs to be this, but they said it needs to be refurbishable. And this kind of plays into the making the spacecraft go beyond its initial intended life. So the different consortium members went for refueling and that was a key impetus for us to establish our office in the UK and given our focus is on refueling and we want to support the growing ecosystem around that. We believe it's all about working with partners across the industry to enable that to work. And we work with propulsion providers as well as spacecraft bus providers and operators to understand what are the, what can we do to embed some of these capabilities into those systems. And that's where kind of our drafty interface evolved was taking those requirements and ensuring it can meet the widest array of parameters. And so it's led to more than 100 spacecraft adopting that as a baseline into their design. So the way we approach standards is kind of, ensuring adoption is key. If you enforce standards that don't, in the end, no one wants to adopt, then it's kind of pointless. I always think of that XKCD graphic where it's like 14 standards and then someone comes along and says, oh, we don't have a, we have too many standards. We need one to rule them all. And then 15 standards at the end of that. It's like, yeah, the way we approach it is like, let's minimize the barriers to adoption and ensure that no constraints, whether the SWAPC impact on their spacecraft. So kind of all of that to say that the UK has kept this approach of, welcoming approach of companies like us who are focused on these capabilities. And we really appreciate the nimble kind of UK regulatory landscape always constantly thinking about how do we improve the regulatory environment to support the next generation of space capabilities. And so, yeah, that's one of the key drivers for us to establish in the UK. I just wanna say my regulation panel is winning in the internal competition for pop culture references. Thank you, Manny. It's really, especially given that your business is a space company, but it is a, what I personally call the sustainability space companies. And so it's interesting to hear that symbiotic relationship that you're describing. I wanna turn back to Maricinel. The FCC has made some really big changes in the last couple years to create new or smoother licensing paths for emerging technologies and to encourage mitigating orbital debris impacts. Can you talk about how that you approach the balance that we've been talking about this, this support for innovation and sustainability, but also the requirements and each of you. What was the driving thinking there? Sure, so I think in this all goes back to the idea of supporting innovation in the satellite industry and in space. And the FCC has taken a number of actions over the last several years, as you're mentioning. We updated our rules to create a new licensing process specific to small satellites that met certain criteria. So creating sort of a streamlined approach where as long as the applicant could satisfy criteria, then they would have faster application processing times, lower fees in many instances. And so that was one area where I think the FCC was looking at a category of operations that were easier to review, had perhaps lower risks in some respects as compared to other operations and created a streamlined process for that set of operations. And I think that's been working very well over the last few years since it's been adopted by the agency. The FCC has also been working on a number of other initiatives in the streamlining area, including just sort of a look at generally how to streamline our licensing processes for operators, whether that be in the timeframe aspect or if there are rules that we have that maybe don't make sense anymore in certain ways. And so that's an ongoing activity at the FCC. We published, or the FCC adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking, look at some of those topics back in the fall of 2023, and we're continuing to work on those issues in the new space bureau and look at some of those topics as we've had comments come in from industry in a lot of those areas. In the orbital debris space, the FCC's been undertaking update to its regulations for orbital debris over the last several years. The FCC's first rules for orbital debris were actually adopted back in 2004. And then in 2020, the FCC took a look back at those regulations made a number of updates at that time and also published a further notice of proposed rulemaking, seeking additional comment in many areas, including several topics with respect to large constellations, maneuverability, things along those lines. And then last year, the FCC actually adopted an update that implemented what is kind of colloquially called the five-year rule. So for commercial satellites that are licensed by the FCC or have market access to the US through a market access grant from the FCC, those satellites that are in Leo will need to have a plan to deorbit within five years following the conclusion of their mission. And so that was a fairly big update to the FCC's rules. There is a grandfathering period for that, so enabling operators who already have plans to launch satellites. So there's a two-year period from the date of the adoption. So that'll be in the fall of 2024 when that becomes effective in that way, but so that was an exciting update for us and there's still a lot of work to be done, I think, in the area of orbital debris regulatory updates and we're continuing to look at those. And in so doing, are looking at ways to find that balance between, you know, making sure that the regulations fit the set of operations that are being contemplated. And I think one of the ways, you know, to look at that is maybe creating categorizing systems in certain ways that make the regulations make sense for those systems. One of the other areas that the FCC is looking at right now is in the area of in-space servicing, assembly and manufacturing or ISAM. There was a notice of inquiry released last year by the agency and we got a large number of comments that came in in that proceeding and we're looking at those now and assessing whether there are any updates we can make to our rules to facilitate those sorts of activities, which again, trying to keep pace with innovation in the area and also ensure that our regulations are a good fit for what's out there right now in the industry. Oh, don't worry, there are lots of questions online about the five year rule. So I didn't even have to ask some of them that you got in there and you went right there. So really appreciate that because I was waiting through which one I was gonna ask, but you've handled that. So I wanna turn to CalPAC and there are questions about whether very large constellations are moving out ahead of the current regulatory environment. It's a pretty hot button issue in some ways. I just wanna kind of give you the opportunity to address that and to say, are there, is there regulatory uncertainty that you would like to see rectified as a company with one of the newer models in space right now? No, I think it's a great question. For any company, large, small, new, old, what you look for in regulation is at the end of the day, transparency, clarity, consistency. That allows investment. It's particularly important in the space sector where the investments are so large. They're also so long term. When we're building a constellation in Amazon's case, we committed when we got our license to at least a $10 billion investment to go make Project Kuiper happen. We are well on the way to go make that happen. And in fact, I think we've pretty much said it's gonna be more than $10 billion. That's what it takes to bring the kind of value proposition that we think Kuiper helps bring. And before answering the broader question about moving ahead, I don't want to lose the connection to what is the value proposition that satellites bring. We've heard this over the last couple of days. Satellites are an integral part of our lives globally. Every person in this world almost is touched by satellites in some way, shape, or form. We all lived through COVID. COVID exposed the criticality of broadband connection to making our lives go forward. There are still 2.7, 3 billion people on earth who have little to no connection. We think satellite systems like Kuiper are gonna help bridge that digital divide. I'm not telling you we're gonna do it alone. In fact, we can't do it alone. We're gonna do it with others, other technology to go narrow that gap. But the idea that somehow we should put a pause on the deployment of these satellite services is frankly feasible, not going to happen. The world is moving forward and it should move forward. I think governments are doing a really good job of exploring the issues associated with large deployments. But industry is not standing alone or standing apart. Industry is actively coming together to develop best practices for how such large constellations and not just large constellations, but all operators in low earth orbit can coexist, can thrive together. And I think that's all part of the storyline that has to be captured here. Nobody is more incentivized than large constellations, I will say point blank, than us for space safety and sustainability. When you invest over $10 billion to build an infrastructure in space, you are not creating it in an environment where you think you are at risk because of bad behavior by yourself or others. That behavior we heard in earlier panels today, the debris that could be created is debris unlike what happens on the ground that debris lasts and could last for generations. So we are incredibly incentivized to control our own behavior and ensure safety, ensure both safety in terms of launch, safety in terms of design and operations, safety in terms of deorbit. And for Kuiper we have done all of that. We picked our low earth orbit around 600 kilometers for that very reason. Being at that lower side of Leo, even in events of problems with our satellites, these satellites naturally deorbit fairly quickly. We do robust testing on our satellites. Each of our satellites are some of the most complicated, most technologically advanced satellites up there today. And these are not disposable. We didn't launch them to be disposable. We care about the value proposition, we care about the reliability of the spacecraft and that's so much a part of what we're doing. So the idea that large constellations are somehow moving ahead of regulation, I think they're moving in partnership. I think they're moving with partnership with industry as well as with government. More work needs to be done. I think the FCC made some really interesting and good decisions when applications come in front of them for very large constellation licensing. And the FCC said, well, wait a second. We want this to go forward, but we want this to go forward in a measured basis. So they gave a portion of the license for that entity's spacecraft in an effort to continue to allow the innovation to go forward while still doing it in a measured way, still evaluating what the safety issues are because the FCC knows it's not a question of one applicant. Once you grant the license to the one applicant for a constellation of that size, you're essentially saying that's, generally speaking, okay for potential future entrance. So they had to take that approach. I love that kind of proactive way to allow industry to move forward, but do it safely. Thank you. There's a lot in there. I don't know that I can unpack it quite just yet. I do also want to have a conversation quickly about another type of licensing. So you work on remote sensing licensing, which is a very different thing. What's your experience? What's your learning curve in setting up AxlGlobe and then taking that internationally as you sell around the world? What's your view on remote sensing licensing regimes? So thank you. So in Japan, the remote sensing business is regulated by the satellite remote sensing act that I mentioned earlier. We need a license only if we provide a very, very high resolution images, say 25 centimeters or better. So in that case, the user also needs a license. So this is very strict rule, because if such very high resolution data are distributed freely, they may give the huge bad impact on the national security. And so we don't need a license if we provide a data images whose resolution is between 25 centimeters and two meters, although we need to strictly manage the end user list. At the moment, we are providing the 2.5 meter resolution. So there are no special restrictions imposed on us, but in the near future, we plan to have high resolution images. So we need to start learning a lot of things from the government through the cross communication with them. Of course, we need to do some spectrum coordination internationally when we launch our satellites. But we have much experience on that. And but it is nothing to do with the we're all sensing. So we're lucky at the moment. I like that we're lucky at the moment. I don't want to, I want to turn to audience questions now. I'm going to pull moderator's privilege and combine a couple of these because they're touching on some of the same topics. So when we talk about as governments and industry we're talking about today about how do we create this environment that a lot of times the first question is one here it calls it, how do we avoid a race to the bottom? How do we avoid venue shopping? Another person put it as what is the knee in the curve where regulation can actually drive something offshore? So I want to try to address this a little bit directly and just say to everyone to take this on. Where are the cautions? Where are the concerns in this area? How do you respond to the idea that if you do too much or too little that you can do exactly the opposite of what you're trying to do which is meet your responsibilities ensure safe and stable space but also support innovation. So where do you see the pain points on this issue? I'll open it up. I'll jump in first to say I think follow the science is the beginning of this. We are still really in the early phases of learning about operations in Leo to maximize and really value safety. And I don't mean that in a bad way. I'm saying there are better techniques of managing operations. I've said this in other forums but think about it as building a highway and if you have no rules on the highway what is the capacity of that highway to handle traffic safely? As you develop best practices and approaches to operating safely I think you can really maximize the overall utilization safely of that resource. And I think that's kind of where we are. Where the question is can governments go too far? Look, if they focus on the science tie it to really where the academic and scientific and industry research tells you are the requirements and really delivering greater safety outcomes. I think industry is going to be right there with you because I don't wanna create this perception that it's a industry against government. Industry against safety. That is generally not what's going on as I said before. We are investing not just Amazon but industry writ large is investing billions and billions of dollars to deploy assets in space. We have a strong desire to ensure safety. I think one of the things government can do is look at what kind of requirements again looking at the best practices that are out there. Where do you require maneuverability? What altitude does that make sense? What other requirements are gonna be make greater sense at higher orbits to enable this kind of innovation to continue? Ray or Marissa, I mean, how do you approach this? Are you worried? Are you worried about driving innovation somewhere else? Yes and no. I suppose there's two extremes, isn't there? You can have a regulation regime which is so lax. You license anything with no real due care or consideration or you have the other spectrum where your regulation regime is so tough that you're not an attractive place and you stifle your own industry. The point you made about working together for the benefit of both, I think we're seeing very much so. And the people we talk to, the people we consult with are very keen that they are seen to be doing the right thing regardless that helps their investors. We had a panel yesterday on ESG. So there's a lot of people who are starting to be very, very careful with the investment that they're making into private companies. They want to make sure their investments are going into a safe, sustainable, responsible company who operates in a socially responsible way. And of course, space sustainability is socially responsible as well as promoting economic benefit for the operators as well. So for us, we have to decide where we sit and what we accept, both as the standards and if people do not want to apply to those standards, we have to accept that they will leave our shores and go somewhere else. But there's standards that we as a nation want to be kept to. And it also applies as well, a little bit of a stick as well as carrot. What services we accept into the UK? So if you're a satellite operator and you, I won't name any countries, but a license in perhaps a state where the licensing regime is potentially questionable, do you accept their services into your territory? Because that can make a big effect on an operator's business model if they can't supply you with service. So it's finding that balance where we are on that spectrum, we're still deciding some of the consultation we're doing will help us get there, but it's certainly something we're thinking about. Great, any other thoughts? I'll just add to add on to that, I think at the FCC where, and I think this is demonstrated by the creation of the space bureau. We're really interested in promoting innovation and US leadership in the space industry. And I think one of the areas that we also look at in terms of our regulation is how we treat applicants for US market access to the United States. And we do look at the same information for applicants for US market access as we do for those companies seeking to have a US license. So that's one area where, again, just going to some of the points that you were making, we also assess satellites or satellite systems that are authorized in other jurisdictions and look at some of the orbital debris mitigation issues potentially associated with those systems as well to the extent that they wanna communicate with the US market. Excellent, all right. So one of you in the audience has kindly given me the perfect closing question, because we have just about five minutes left. And it was actually something we were thinking about before. So given the opportunity, let's talk a little more theoretically here. And we titled this, help not hinder. Sorry, I particularly love this. What is one regulation, or I'll broaden a little and say one area where you think we really could create more certainty that you would suggest, and it doesn't have to be for your country. Again, this is, let's be a little hypothetical here. Within the next 12 months to help not hinder. Where do you think some of these pain points are or where more action is needed? If it's all right, I will start. We'll just start here with Ray and we'll just work our way down the line. Well, be careful what I say with the colleagues in the audience. Doesn't have to be okay. I personally, I think that's where we could really help is the interaction between a UK registered asset or service with a target, for instance, from another country. How to give clarity on regulations to help give some direction to those who were potentially, the UK wants to be responsible. And, but we have a limited number of satellites compared to others. So the ability to operate across borders in space safely without any regulatory difficulties. I think that'd be a great thing to achieve if that could be done in the next 12 months. All right, go back. Well, you're putting me in a hotspot because as I said before, I think a lot of what's happening out there that's probably the most impactful is in the area of best practices. I think what was said yesterday by a colleague of yours was it's an experimental ground. What industry is creating through these best practices is really allowing everyone, all of us, to learn better about how to move towards space safety. I think one of the areas that is useful to look at potentially on a regulatory basis, but maybe in a best practices perspective, is that a propulsion? Looking at maneuver, I shouldn't say propulsion, let me make it technology neutral. Maneuverability, but maneuverability with an outcome capability. I think looking at that and saying at what altitude is that required based on a lot of different factors out there to ensure long-term sustainability, I think that is an area that government should look at. Excellent. Okay, so I wanted to announce that we released our green spacecraft standard just a few days ago. It is company standard, but we're trying to secure the sustainability not only in the space, but on the ground. We want to care about all the activities on the ground in space. The standard is available on our website, so please take a look later. And we'd like to have discussions with other industry players so that we can make it more effective and even possibly evolve it into our industry standard. So, what we're concerned about is that there is ongoing discussions about the space traffic management and also the DO bidding. And our business might be damaged severely if new regulations that might be difficult for us to cope with are suddenly introduced. So, we continue carefully watching ongoing discussions in the industry, but we also would like the government to be involved in such discussions, which are sometimes G to G, and to share the acquiring information among us in a real-time manner. So, we need to have more discussions about the space traffic management. I don't know how such kind of discussions would affect our activities, so we need to have more certainty on that point. So, we'd like to work with the government. Excellent. Nanny, if you were God of regulation, what would you do? Well, I would do everything I could to focus on speed in terms of the licensing process. Companies' kind of competitive advantages, how quickly it can innovate. What is the innovation cycle? And if there's a month's delayed or every month of delay that there is in getting the asset into orbit and generating revenue, is a month-less runway for a startup or a small company. So, if there is an opportunity to improve on the speed of that license process, I think that should be the focus area. And I'm not saying you compromise the considerations that we need to ensure are embedded in that. I think you can have both worlds through automation, through a number of other avenues that can be incorporated into the licensing process. And yeah, I would encourage focusing on that. Excellent. Marissa, you have the last word. All right. So, the FCC has a number of different things that we're looking at right now in terms of regulatory updates. I would say one issue that is perhaps cross-cutting across many of those proceedings and I think is something that will be a focus for the new bureau is transparency and the way in which we can help provide information. And that can take a lot of different forms in terms of transparency. But I think that may be an area of focus for us going forward and I think an important one. And particularly to make sure that a new entrance are getting the information that they need about what their obligations, their regulatory obligations are. So that's I think one area for continued work. Excellent. Well, that's what I want to hear. All right, everyone. I also have the two wonderful things I get to do right now. I want to thank my panelists. I was really excited to have this conversation. It's not often that we get to say on public together as the government and industry and try to talk through some of these issues. And so thank you all for being willing to have this conversation. I think for really providing some thoughtful comments and food for thought for our audience. So thank you very much for joining me today.